4 ms·

This sounds like a left-wing/market-sceptic attempt to solve a very real problem. I wonder what a more broad-based proposal would look like, one that also had

This sounds like a left-wing/market-sceptic attempt to solve a very real problem. I wonder what a more broad-based proposal would look like, one that also had some right-wing/market-friendly features. The left gets rent controls, and the right gets what? As-of-right construction? Relaxed zoning rules? Whatever it is, it would have to be pretty major for the right to put up with rent controls. (By "the right" I mean pro-business democrats mostly, because we are taking about a very blue area of the country.)

idlewords 10y ago
I think the better framing in Silicon Valley might be established residents vs. newcomers. As you point out, most people around here are politically similar, and I think NIMBY-ism plays a much more important role than political alignment.
- natrius 10y ago
  It's pretty useful to point out the contradiction between progressivism and the embrace of literal segregation laws that cause sprawl, cause traffic, and hurt our environment. The prevailing concern about property values during America's urbanization was the arrival of black families. Once racial restrictions were overturned, the best "race-neutral" tool to protect property values was just to exclude cheaper homes from neighborhoods and rely on economic disparities to segregate for you. That is what exclusionary zoning is. You can make neighborhoods expensive on purpose by zoning for fewer people than want to live in a neighborhood so only the richest can live there. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1975. It's time to eliminate it near jobs. Anyone who claims to care about affordability while supporting laws that make their neighborhood expensive on purpose is full of poop.
  - idlewords 10y ago
    I think this is an important point to make. The degree to which people will abandon what seem like core principles when it comes to fighting change in their neighborhood, school district etc. is one of the unpleasant things about living in a left-leaning area like the Bay.
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
Abolish all local input into zoning and transit development, in favor of a pro-development Bay Area regional zoning and transit czar. That's the only thing that'd make enough of a difference to actually matter. Along with reforms that allow developers to up-zone existing lots by providing equivalent-or-better housing for tenants during and after construction. Basically a gigantic middle finger to NIMBYs - you got us into this affordability mess, so now we're building shit and you just have to deal with it. Something like that would make residential construction available and cheap enough to fix the regional affordability issues. And that's the only thing that'd make up for enacting rent controls - making housing cheap enough that the controls are irrelevant.
twblalock 10y ago
As of right construction is probably the best solution, and it was recently proposed by the governor of California, who is a Democrat and is generally perceived to be very liberal. The problem with the Bay Area is not just zoning -- it's the fact that even when land is zoned for housing, all kinds of local advocacy groups can prevent development by filing frivolous lawsuits and demanding further environmental reviews (even when thorough environmental reviews were already conducted). As of right construction would prevent many of those kinds of lawsuits. Jerry Brown's proposal was probably the kind of compromise you are looking for: as of right construction would apply to developments with a certain percentage of subsidized housing. (The nice thing about subsidies versus rent control is that they are means-tested, so you won't end up with high-income earners taking advantage of rent control and low-income earners paying market rate.) Unfortunately, his proposal did not get anywhere.
- johan_larson 10y ago
  It would also help if the incentives shifted. Right now, cities make money on business land use, but lose money on residential land use (on average). So either residents need to lower their expectations of services, or start paying more taxes.

idlewords 10y ago

I think the better framing in Silicon Valley might be established residents vs. newcomers. As you point out, most people around here are politically similar, and I think NIMBY-ism plays a much more important role than political alignment.

natrius 10y ago
It's pretty useful to point out the contradiction between progressivism and the embrace of literal segregation laws that cause sprawl, cause traffic, and hurt our environment. The prevailing concern about property values during America's urbanization was the arrival of black families. Once racial restrictions were overturned, the best "race-neutral" tool to protect property values was just to exclude cheaper homes from neighborhoods and rely on economic disparities to segregate for you. That is what exclusionary zoning is. You can make neighborhoods expensive on purpose by zoning for fewer people than want to live in a neighborhood so only the richest can live there. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1975. It's time to eliminate it near jobs. Anyone who claims to care about affordability while supporting laws that make their neighborhood expensive on purpose is full of poop.
- idlewords 10y ago
  I think this is an important point to make. The degree to which people will abandon what seem like core principles when it comes to fighting change in their neighborhood, school district etc. is one of the unpleasant things about living in a left-leaning area like the Bay.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

Abolish all local input into zoning and transit development, in favor of a pro-development Bay Area regional zoning and transit czar. That's the only thing that'd make enough of a difference to actually matter. Along with reforms that allow developers to up-zone existing lots by providing equivalent-or-better housing for tenants during and after construction. Basically a gigantic middle finger to NIMBYs - you got us into this affordability mess, so now we're building shit and you just have to deal with it. Something like that would make residential construction available and cheap enough to fix the regional affordability issues. And that's the only thing that'd make up for enacting rent controls - making housing cheap enough that the controls are irrelevant.

twblalock 10y ago

As of right construction is probably the best solution, and it was recently proposed by the governor of California, who is a Democrat and is generally perceived to be very liberal. The problem with the Bay Area is not just zoning -- it's the fact that even when land is zoned for housing, all kinds of local advocacy groups can prevent development by filing frivolous lawsuits and demanding further environmental reviews (even when thorough environmental reviews were already conducted). As of right construction would prevent many of those kinds of lawsuits. Jerry Brown's proposal was probably the kind of compromise you are looking for: as of right construction would apply to developments with a certain percentage of subsidized housing. (The nice thing about subsidies versus rent control is that they are means-tested, so you won't end up with high-income earners taking advantage of rent control and low-income earners paying market rate.) Unfortunately, his proposal did not get anywhere.

johan_larson 10y ago
It would also help if the incentives shifted. Right now, cities make money on business land use, but lose money on residential land use (on average). So either residents need to lower their expectations of services, or start paying more taxes.