4 ms·

It's more of an everywhere-but-Texas problem. Texas has a great tradition of respecting property rights. Most states are not like this.

bluejekyll 11y ago
But this comes at an expense to nature and or natural preserves for wildlife. California has some of the greatest protected forests and areas like Yosemite. So, yes we pay more and have more restrictions, but a better question is is it worth it? Following the articles car analogy, this is like requiring cars to have airbags for the safety of the people in them, but that comes at a higher cost on the purchase price of the car.
- tomschlick 11y ago
  And SF has some of the highest rent in the country because they won't zone for larger apartment buildings.
- surfmike 11y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. We have minimum lot size restrictions, and restrict lots to one housing unit (R1 zoning). These regulations push up the prices of homes (since it increases the minimum amount of land for a housing unit), and do nothing to save forests and national parks. In fact, if we keep building low density neighborhoods, more open space will be used up than if our zoning allowed for denser development.
- gwbas1c 11y ago
  I think you miss the point: Two words: Eminent Domain. Silicon Valley (and other areas in CA) need to use eminent domain to build high-rises. The housing crisis can be solved without impacting nature preserves.
  - mcguire 11y ago
    Didn't some place in New Jersey get roundly hosed around here when they pulled eminent domain on some properties and then turned them over to developers? Something about property rights?
  - ghaff 11y ago
    Or tech companies could just move to the many areas of the country, such as many areas of the Midwest, where housing isn't so constrained. There's plenty of space in the US. Just not in the Bay area.
    - drivingmenuts 11y ago
      Sure, and then they'd be stuck with Billy Joe and Jim Bob, who once used a computer back in the 90's, as a workforce. Or they could offer the same California salaries to programmers, who would live like kings in a small town but wouldn't have the same conveniences, and still spend the same amount of money. Moving to the countryside doesn't always make business sense. Sure, costs to have a business in an urban area, but it's easier to find workforce at all needed levels and the trappings of urban civilization keep your workforce occupied and happier in their off hours. Case-in-point: I work for a cash-strapped startup (for reasons) and sometimes have to live off my savings, but I live in an urban area. I could move to my hometown, where my costs would be about 25% of my current expenses, but then I'd be living in a special kind of hell where there are few good restaurants and the nearest bookstore is 60 miles away.
      - douche 11y ago
        Oh my god, the horror of not having five-star restaurants! If Google or Apple moved from the Bay to anywhere else, their workers would follow. Don't doubt that for a second. Or we could just embrace technology and stop insisting that all your workers have to breathe the same oxygen, and allow remote work. There are huge swathes of the United States that are becoming depopulated because industry died and all of the young people have had to leave to find work. I just got back from a trip home to western Maine, and it's disturbing the number of houses that are just abandoned up there.
        drivingmenuts 11y ago
        > Oh my god, the horror of not having five-star restaurants! It's not just the lack of 5-star restaurants, it's the lack of 2+ star restaurants and everything else that goes with it. If your job relocated to western Maine, how much of a wrench in your life would that be? > If Google or Apple moved from the Bay to anywhere else, their workers would follow. Don't doubt that for a second. Only if the pay incentive was great enough, I'm sure. Otherwise, it might be easier to just get a new job in the same area. Google and Apple might be exceptions, considering that they're pretty much both loaded, but any smaller company would have to think long and hard about the expenditures required to get the bulk of their employees moved. People get rooted in their communities, especially if the standard of living is higher than where they're expected to move. > Or we could just embrace technology and stop insisting that all your workers have to breathe the same oxygen, and allow remote work. And someday pigs might fly, but not this century.
  - mtviewdave 11y ago
    In California, the state constitution forbids (in general) state and local government from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence for the purposes of conveying it to a private entity. This restriction was added to the state constitution in 2008 via referendum. On a broader note, while I understand the frustration with NIMBYism, a lot of these discussions about housing here on HN cross the line from anti-NIMBYism to anti-democracy. The United States is not China. The solution to the housing crisis in the US is not and never will be for governments (at any level) to impose solutions contrary to the general will of the American voting public. Any government that tries to do so will find itself replaced. Quickly. And quite rightly so.
Animats 11y ago
Texas has a lot of very low value real estate. US real estate is cheap if you're willing to live in Outer Nowhere.
- bdcravens 11y ago
  Yes, there's a lot of wide open spaces in Texas, but there's tons of sub $200K houses in decent subdivisions sub $200k, and within 15 minutes of downtowns $200k-300k. I live in an older area midway between downtown Houston and the upscale Woodlands area in North Houston; my house is value at $105k. (3 bedrooms, 2 baths, corner lot, 1600 sq ft, big fenced yard)
  - qdog 11y ago
    Sure, but you have to live in Houston. Austin house prices in good school districts are expensive. I just sold a house for 10k in a small town in a part of Texas with almost no jobs, so you can find houses, but houses close to the biggest job markets in desirable neighborhoods just aren't that cheap. You can, however easily retire in BFE with a cheap house if that's the desire.
    - bdcravens 11y ago
      Definitely, though Dallas prices are on par with Houston. However, even in Houston, there are expensive homes (such as in the medical district, River Oaks, The Woodlands, etc) My mom lives in a little $20k house about 90 minutes north of Dallas. (and it's not necessarily BFE, but in an older part of a 40k city)
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Nah, it's more some parts of the U.S. are just ridiculously expensive. In many areas of South and East, you can get quite affordable homes within 20-30 minutes drive of the areas (eg "downtown") that have the big businesses and expensive homes. Local example is nearby properties at $80k-200k half-hour away from condos costing nearly a million right next to businesses. Locals working there spend most of their day, lunch breaks, and some free time on weekends around all those people. No need to live over there even for networking. And then there's Texas doing it's own thing with its own cost-benefit analysis. As usual. ;)

bluejekyll 11y ago

But this comes at an expense to nature and or natural preserves for wildlife. California has some of the greatest protected forests and areas like Yosemite. So, yes we pay more and have more restrictions, but a better question is is it worth it? Following the articles car analogy, this is like requiring cars to have airbags for the safety of the people in them, but that comes at a higher cost on the purchase price of the car.

tomschlick 11y ago
And SF has some of the highest rent in the country because they won't zone for larger apartment buildings.
surfmike 11y ago
This is a false dichotomy. We have minimum lot size restrictions, and restrict lots to one housing unit (R1 zoning). These regulations push up the prices of homes (since it increases the minimum amount of land for a housing unit), and do nothing to save forests and national parks. In fact, if we keep building low density neighborhoods, more open space will be used up than if our zoning allowed for denser development.
gwbas1c 11y ago
I think you miss the point: Two words: Eminent Domain. Silicon Valley (and other areas in CA) need to use eminent domain to build high-rises. The housing crisis can be solved without impacting nature preserves.
- mcguire 11y ago
  Didn't some place in New Jersey get roundly hosed around here when they pulled eminent domain on some properties and then turned them over to developers? Something about property rights?
- ghaff 11y ago
  Or tech companies could just move to the many areas of the country, such as many areas of the Midwest, where housing isn't so constrained. There's plenty of space in the US. Just not in the Bay area.
  - drivingmenuts 11y ago
    Sure, and then they'd be stuck with Billy Joe and Jim Bob, who once used a computer back in the 90's, as a workforce. Or they could offer the same California salaries to programmers, who would live like kings in a small town but wouldn't have the same conveniences, and still spend the same amount of money. Moving to the countryside doesn't always make business sense. Sure, costs to have a business in an urban area, but it's easier to find workforce at all needed levels and the trappings of urban civilization keep your workforce occupied and happier in their off hours. Case-in-point: I work for a cash-strapped startup (for reasons) and sometimes have to live off my savings, but I live in an urban area. I could move to my hometown, where my costs would be about 25% of my current expenses, but then I'd be living in a special kind of hell where there are few good restaurants and the nearest bookstore is 60 miles away.
    - douche 11y ago
      Oh my god, the horror of not having five-star restaurants! If Google or Apple moved from the Bay to anywhere else, their workers would follow. Don't doubt that for a second. Or we could just embrace technology and stop insisting that all your workers have to breathe the same oxygen, and allow remote work. There are huge swathes of the United States that are becoming depopulated because industry died and all of the young people have had to leave to find work. I just got back from a trip home to western Maine, and it's disturbing the number of houses that are just abandoned up there.
      - drivingmenuts 11y ago
        > Oh my god, the horror of not having five-star restaurants! It's not just the lack of 5-star restaurants, it's the lack of 2+ star restaurants and everything else that goes with it. If your job relocated to western Maine, how much of a wrench in your life would that be? > If Google or Apple moved from the Bay to anywhere else, their workers would follow. Don't doubt that for a second. Only if the pay incentive was great enough, I'm sure. Otherwise, it might be easier to just get a new job in the same area. Google and Apple might be exceptions, considering that they're pretty much both loaded, but any smaller company would have to think long and hard about the expenditures required to get the bulk of their employees moved. People get rooted in their communities, especially if the standard of living is higher than where they're expected to move. > Or we could just embrace technology and stop insisting that all your workers have to breathe the same oxygen, and allow remote work. And someday pigs might fly, but not this century.
- mtviewdave 11y ago
  In California, the state constitution forbids (in general) state and local government from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence for the purposes of conveying it to a private entity. This restriction was added to the state constitution in 2008 via referendum. On a broader note, while I understand the frustration with NIMBYism, a lot of these discussions about housing here on HN cross the line from anti-NIMBYism to anti-democracy. The United States is not China. The solution to the housing crisis in the US is not and never will be for governments (at any level) to impose solutions contrary to the general will of the American voting public. Any government that tries to do so will find itself replaced. Quickly. And quite rightly so.

Animats 11y ago

Texas has a lot of very low value real estate. US real estate is cheap if you're willing to live in Outer Nowhere.

bdcravens 11y ago
Yes, there's a lot of wide open spaces in Texas, but there's tons of sub $200K houses in decent subdivisions sub $200k, and within 15 minutes of downtowns $200k-300k. I live in an older area midway between downtown Houston and the upscale Woodlands area in North Houston; my house is value at $105k. (3 bedrooms, 2 baths, corner lot, 1600 sq ft, big fenced yard)
- qdog 11y ago
  Sure, but you have to live in Houston. Austin house prices in good school districts are expensive. I just sold a house for 10k in a small town in a part of Texas with almost no jobs, so you can find houses, but houses close to the biggest job markets in desirable neighborhoods just aren't that cheap. You can, however easily retire in BFE with a cheap house if that's the desire.
  - bdcravens 11y ago
    Definitely, though Dallas prices are on par with Houston. However, even in Houston, there are expensive homes (such as in the medical district, River Oaks, The Woodlands, etc) My mom lives in a little $20k house about 90 minutes north of Dallas. (and it's not necessarily BFE, but in an older part of a 40k city)

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Nah, it's more some parts of the U.S. are just ridiculously expensive. In many areas of South and East, you can get quite affordable homes within 20-30 minutes drive of the areas (eg "downtown") that have the big businesses and expensive homes. Local example is nearby properties at $80k-200k half-hour away from condos costing nearly a million right next to businesses. Locals working there spend most of their day, lunch breaks, and some free time on weekends around all those people. No need to live over there even for networking. And then there's Texas doing it's own thing with its own cost-benefit analysis. As usual. ;)