14 ms·

Zoning changes may be a fine short term solution for a finite number of units. With rezoning, this plan, non-profit, government housing or any number of options

Zoning changes may be a fine short term solution for a finite number of units. With rezoning, this plan, non-profit, government housing or any number of options become viable. But medium term, BART is already at maximum capacity and long term quality of life continues to drop and the economy chokes as housing cost per foot rises. The real solution is removing the policies that drive up housing prices. Repeal prop 13, eliminate the mortgage deduction, tax capital gains on house sales aggressively, limit realtors to hourly compensation, end collusion among apartment management firms, improve social security so the middle class is no longer dependent on equity to survive old age, don't use tax funds to bail defaulters on mortgage payments while there are other people living on the street.

greedo 10y ago
Your solutions would only make things worse. Repealing Prop 13 will hurt the middle class you want to help with increased Social Security. They'll be priced out of homes. Repealing it will also not lower housing costs. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction will do similar damage, as will eliminating the capital gains protections on primary residence sales. That would just encourage more people to sit on their houses instead of paying an extra 20% or so. Limiting realtors to hourly compensation? Why don't we limit you to hourly compensation? That's the nuttiest, out of left field suggestion I've ever heard. So much of your reply is nonsense that I'm tempted to think you're trolling, but nonsense isn't always a good indicator of that.
- whybroke 10y ago
  >Repealing Prop 13... Would put houses that the owner can't afford on the market thereby increasing supply. Adequate social security would mean they don't then get dumped on the streets. >Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction... Waiting changes the tax burden? No. But a capital gains tax would deincentivize flipping houses, a practice that serves little purpose other than inflating prices. All the benefits of mortgage deduction are immediately swallowed by a commensurate increase in house price. People will always budget the same monthly payment, the only difference is whether the non-home owners (or future generation due to budget deficits) are unfairly burdened by having to make up for the missing tax revenue. The mortgage deduction is simply a funneling of money from the treasury to lending institution and provides zero long term benefit to the home owner. And Canada does not have it and their country has not fallen apart. >Limiting realtors to hourly compensation?... Hourly is good enough for lawyers, but salaried would also work. Seriously though, anything that does not incentive maximizing the sale price (such as pegging compensation to sale price) would reduce housing prices. Better would be tech simply replacing realtors entirely but unfortunately they have such clout in the assembly, their privileges are sacrosanct. >I'm tempted to think you're trolling... That is because you have never hear these ideas before exactly because they are not disseminated exactly because they would reduce housing prices which is political suicide and will cause TV views to turn the channel. I assure you not one of these ideas is my own and indeed they are well understood and discussed by very serious people eg[0], [1] and [2] [0]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-economists-hate/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-econo... [1]http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/14/the-worst-tax-breaks/the-uselessness-of-the-mortgage-interest-deduction http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/14/the-worst-ta... [2]http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/15/heres-a-way-to-painlessly-phase-out-the-mortgage-interest-tax-deduction/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/15/heres-a-way-...
  - greedo 10y ago
    Sure, your ideas are so unique, never heard of them before; except from people who don't understand how politics work. Prop 13 isn't going anywhere, especially not with both California's dysfunctional legislature, and its popularity with homeowners. Same with mortgage interest deduction. You'll never see a major candidate campaigning to reduce the deduction because it's political suicide.
    - dismantlethesun 10y ago
      Do you have a suggestion of what might work?
      - greedo 10y ago
        There's only so much you can do to increase affordable housing in SF/Bay area without infringing on the rights of property owners. Rezoning so more vertical structures can be built will help, but not much in the scheme of things. SF will just continue to be an expensive area to live in. There's not always an easy or realistic fix to some problems in life.
        bufordsharkley 10y ago
        > infringing on the rights of property owners When this refers to the beneficiaries of land grabs (either directly or indirectly), I don't think an appeal to the natural rights of property owners holds much power.
    - bufordsharkley 10y ago
      Support for abolitionism was political suicide at once point, too. I reject the idea that "political feasibility" can ever be a conversation-ender, especially when put against a true injustice. Prop 13 (and all other subsidies for special interests) are unjust and unsustainable; they persist due to the support of these special interests (and the indifference of everyone else). With the proper education and elegance, one can hope for a day that we can see through this and implement the right policies.
stale2002 10y ago
Bart usage would go down, not up. People use Bart because they live far away and need to commute into the city. If there are X number of jobs in the city, and less than X apartments, people need to commute. By building houses next to jobs, transportation usage goes massively down.

greedo 10y ago

Your solutions would only make things worse. Repealing Prop 13 will hurt the middle class you want to help with increased Social Security. They'll be priced out of homes. Repealing it will also not lower housing costs. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction will do similar damage, as will eliminating the capital gains protections on primary residence sales. That would just encourage more people to sit on their houses instead of paying an extra 20% or so. Limiting realtors to hourly compensation? Why don't we limit you to hourly compensation? That's the nuttiest, out of left field suggestion I've ever heard. So much of your reply is nonsense that I'm tempted to think you're trolling, but nonsense isn't always a good indicator of that.

whybroke 10y ago
>Repealing Prop 13... Would put houses that the owner can't afford on the market thereby increasing supply. Adequate social security would mean they don't then get dumped on the streets. >Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction... Waiting changes the tax burden? No. But a capital gains tax would deincentivize flipping houses, a practice that serves little purpose other than inflating prices. All the benefits of mortgage deduction are immediately swallowed by a commensurate increase in house price. People will always budget the same monthly payment, the only difference is whether the non-home owners (or future generation due to budget deficits) are unfairly burdened by having to make up for the missing tax revenue. The mortgage deduction is simply a funneling of money from the treasury to lending institution and provides zero long term benefit to the home owner. And Canada does not have it and their country has not fallen apart. >Limiting realtors to hourly compensation?... Hourly is good enough for lawyers, but salaried would also work. Seriously though, anything that does not incentive maximizing the sale price (such as pegging compensation to sale price) would reduce housing prices. Better would be tech simply replacing realtors entirely but unfortunately they have such clout in the assembly, their privileges are sacrosanct. >I'm tempted to think you're trolling... That is because you have never hear these ideas before exactly because they are not disseminated exactly because they would reduce housing prices which is political suicide and will cause TV views to turn the channel. I assure you not one of these ideas is my own and indeed they are well understood and discussed by very serious people eg[0], [1] and [2] [0]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-economists-hate/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-econo... [1]http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/14/the-worst-tax-breaks/the-uselessness-of-the-mortgage-interest-deduction http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/14/the-worst-ta... [2]http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/15/heres-a-way-to-painlessly-phase-out-the-mortgage-interest-tax-deduction/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/15/heres-a-way-...
- greedo 10y ago
  Sure, your ideas are so unique, never heard of them before; except from people who don't understand how politics work. Prop 13 isn't going anywhere, especially not with both California's dysfunctional legislature, and its popularity with homeowners. Same with mortgage interest deduction. You'll never see a major candidate campaigning to reduce the deduction because it's political suicide.
  - dismantlethesun 10y ago
    Do you have a suggestion of what might work?
    - greedo 10y ago
      There's only so much you can do to increase affordable housing in SF/Bay area without infringing on the rights of property owners. Rezoning so more vertical structures can be built will help, but not much in the scheme of things. SF will just continue to be an expensive area to live in. There's not always an easy or realistic fix to some problems in life.
      - bufordsharkley 10y ago
        > infringing on the rights of property owners When this refers to the beneficiaries of land grabs (either directly or indirectly), I don't think an appeal to the natural rights of property owners holds much power.
  - bufordsharkley 10y ago
    Support for abolitionism was political suicide at once point, too. I reject the idea that "political feasibility" can ever be a conversation-ender, especially when put against a true injustice. Prop 13 (and all other subsidies for special interests) are unjust and unsustainable; they persist due to the support of these special interests (and the indifference of everyone else). With the proper education and elegance, one can hope for a day that we can see through this and implement the right policies.

stale2002 10y ago

Bart usage would go down, not up. People use Bart because they live far away and need to commute into the city. If there are X number of jobs in the city, and less than X apartments, people need to commute. By building houses next to jobs, transportation usage goes massively down.