10 ms·

I'm going to sound like a broken record here but there are policy and other decisions being made in the Bay Area that are restricting the housing supply and dri

I'm going to sound like a broken record here but there are policy and other decisions being made in the Bay Area that are restricting the housing supply and driving up the price of existing housing. You don't have to be a bystander in this process, you can help lobby for more supply. A list of propositions and legislation to support (SF, Brisbane, Mountain View, the CA state legislature) can be found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14195301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14195301

Camillo 9y ago
There should be a site where these actionable things are concisely listed. Not a HN comment, a real website. Maybe people could even sign up for emails whenever a new action item pops up. OTOH, many people here are not US citizens, so they cannot really do much about any of this.
- kevinburke 9y ago
  There is! yimbyaction.org. They have a mailing list where they send out calls to action on upcoming legislation. https://yimbyaction.org/mailinglist/ https://yimbyaction.org/mailinglist/
- Kluny 9y ago
  strongtowns.org can keep you posted as well.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
jrapdx3 9y ago
The question I have has several parts, but fundamentally I wonder if the housing supply could even be increased enough to materially affect housing prices. Not saying that the housing supply isn't excessively restricted, but how much can restrictions be decreased and how much difference would it make? An analogy is building freeways to relieve traffic congestion. What regularly happens is that additional roads or adding lanes to existing roads provides temporary respite from traffic jams. But before too long the roads are jam-packed again, the problem isn't solved, just have more cars clogging traffic. I suspect adding more housing won't lower housing prices, just bring some more people into the area. BTW this is what's happening here in Portland OR, where a building boom has been going on for years. The area population has increased, housing prices are still out of range for many people.
- nitrogen 9y ago
  But before too long the roads are jam-packed again, the problem isn't solved, just have more cars clogging traffic. Isn't that a good thing, indicating greater economic activity?
  - kevinburke 9y ago
    It's a well known feature of transportation planning that traffic expands to fill available road space: http://www.culturechange.org/issue8/traffic%20expands.htm http://www.culturechange.org/issue8/traffic%20expands.htm The argument is, if the traffic is just going to expand to fill the new roads we build, then why not build more densely instead and help people have shorter commutes. Also some arguments around vicious cycles of building more roads, leading to more traffic, leading to demand for more, bigger roads, etc, vs. supporting biking/walking/public transit
    - CuriouslyC 9y ago
      The problem with density is that it assumes that housing will be efficiently allocated so it reduces people's need to commute. Unfortunately there are a lot of other factors involved and density in some cases ends up making traffic worse.
- kevinburke 9y ago
  > fundamentally I wonder if the housing supply could even be increased enough to materially affect housing prices. Yes, it can; SF built 5,000 units last year, a record, and rents and owner move-in evictions finally declined. At the very least, building more housing can prevent further large price rises. > BTW this is what's happening here in Portland OR, where a building boom has been going on for years. The area population has increased, housing prices are still out of range for many people. The question is what would happen if you didn't build the housing. I contend that the people moving in would outbid everyone for the existing housing stock, which would drive rent increases even more than rents are currently going up. It may be that the new housing is just keeping things at a base level. Flipped on its head the logic here doesn't really make sense; destroying existing housing stock would be disastrous for rents and prices, it makes sense that building more would help prevent increases.
smrtinsert 9y ago
the headline is still very applicable to other metro areas.
- kevinburke 9y ago
  True, though the Bay Area is unique in the amount of leverage NIMBY's have in the process, through "discretionary review", CEQA lawsuits, EIR appeals, and other tactics...
coolspot 9y ago
Not all cities must be made into overpopulated ant colonies. People love SF as it is, and if you increase density it would be not SF, it would be something else. If you like dense cities - there are plenty of them - LA, SD, NY...
- xxSparkleSxx 9y ago
  It's funny, I live in SD and many say the same thing. "We don't want to increase density, we like that it feels like a small city. It's a privilege to live here, if you can't afford it too bad." Something's got to give somewhere.
  - sintaxi 9y ago
    A city is not obligated to densify. The give is that people start to move to places they can afford to live instead of complaining about what hasn't been handed to them.
    - alpha_squared 9y ago
      > instead of complaining about what hasn't been handed to them While I understand this sentiment, it's certainly glossing over the opposing view of people being kicked out of the homes/neighborhoods they grew up in.
      - sintaxi 9y ago
        Except they are not. Anyone is free to purchase any property that someone else is willing to sell. If you don't own the property you live in then you may not always be able to live there. Its pretty simple. If you want guarantees own the things you use.
        alpha_squared 9y ago
        I don't know if you're aware of this, but your statements are coming off awfully privileged. From the idea that people need to "earn" things, a strangely unique American perspective that you "earn" anything at all (completely pretending that you didn't start off ahead in a lot of ways anyway). To the idea that "its pretty simple" [sic] and that the blindingly obvious solution is to just "own the things you use" - a luxury that not many people can do.
sintaxi 9y ago
Perhaps you can't afford to live in the Bay Area. Live elsewhere.
pascalxus 9y ago
Thank you for bringing this up. Don't be afraid to sound like a broken record, there are so many uninformed voters out there. We need the repetition. But, one thing we have to be careful of: If you place constraints on builders: such as requiring affordable housing, it reduces the amount of supply thus making the problem worse for everyone. What we really need, is more supply. Lots of deregulation to encourage as much building as we can possibly get

Camillo 9y ago

There should be a site where these actionable things are concisely listed. Not a HN comment, a real website. Maybe people could even sign up for emails whenever a new action item pops up. OTOH, many people here are not US citizens, so they cannot really do much about any of this.

kevinburke 9y ago
There is! yimbyaction.org. They have a mailing list where they send out calls to action on upcoming legislation. https://yimbyaction.org/mailinglist/ https://yimbyaction.org/mailinglist/
Kluny 9y ago
strongtowns.org can keep you posted as well.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jrapdx3 9y ago

The question I have has several parts, but fundamentally I wonder if the housing supply could even be increased enough to materially affect housing prices. Not saying that the housing supply isn't excessively restricted, but how much can restrictions be decreased and how much difference would it make? An analogy is building freeways to relieve traffic congestion. What regularly happens is that additional roads or adding lanes to existing roads provides temporary respite from traffic jams. But before too long the roads are jam-packed again, the problem isn't solved, just have more cars clogging traffic. I suspect adding more housing won't lower housing prices, just bring some more people into the area. BTW this is what's happening here in Portland OR, where a building boom has been going on for years. The area population has increased, housing prices are still out of range for many people.

nitrogen 9y ago
But before too long the roads are jam-packed again, the problem isn't solved, just have more cars clogging traffic. Isn't that a good thing, indicating greater economic activity?
- kevinburke 9y ago
  It's a well known feature of transportation planning that traffic expands to fill available road space: http://www.culturechange.org/issue8/traffic%20expands.htm http://www.culturechange.org/issue8/traffic%20expands.htm The argument is, if the traffic is just going to expand to fill the new roads we build, then why not build more densely instead and help people have shorter commutes. Also some arguments around vicious cycles of building more roads, leading to more traffic, leading to demand for more, bigger roads, etc, vs. supporting biking/walking/public transit
  - CuriouslyC 9y ago
    The problem with density is that it assumes that housing will be efficiently allocated so it reduces people's need to commute. Unfortunately there are a lot of other factors involved and density in some cases ends up making traffic worse.
kevinburke 9y ago
> fundamentally I wonder if the housing supply could even be increased enough to materially affect housing prices. Yes, it can; SF built 5,000 units last year, a record, and rents and owner move-in evictions finally declined. At the very least, building more housing can prevent further large price rises. > BTW this is what's happening here in Portland OR, where a building boom has been going on for years. The area population has increased, housing prices are still out of range for many people. The question is what would happen if you didn't build the housing. I contend that the people moving in would outbid everyone for the existing housing stock, which would drive rent increases even more than rents are currently going up. It may be that the new housing is just keeping things at a base level. Flipped on its head the logic here doesn't really make sense; destroying existing housing stock would be disastrous for rents and prices, it makes sense that building more would help prevent increases.

smrtinsert 9y ago

the headline is still very applicable to other metro areas.

kevinburke 9y ago
True, though the Bay Area is unique in the amount of leverage NIMBY's have in the process, through "discretionary review", CEQA lawsuits, EIR appeals, and other tactics...

coolspot 9y ago

Not all cities must be made into overpopulated ant colonies. People love SF as it is, and if you increase density it would be not SF, it would be something else. If you like dense cities - there are plenty of them - LA, SD, NY...

xxSparkleSxx 9y ago
It's funny, I live in SD and many say the same thing. "We don't want to increase density, we like that it feels like a small city. It's a privilege to live here, if you can't afford it too bad." Something's got to give somewhere.
- sintaxi 9y ago
  A city is not obligated to densify. The give is that people start to move to places they can afford to live instead of complaining about what hasn't been handed to them.
  - alpha_squared 9y ago
    > instead of complaining about what hasn't been handed to them While I understand this sentiment, it's certainly glossing over the opposing view of people being kicked out of the homes/neighborhoods they grew up in.
    - sintaxi 9y ago
      Except they are not. Anyone is free to purchase any property that someone else is willing to sell. If you don't own the property you live in then you may not always be able to live there. Its pretty simple. If you want guarantees own the things you use.
      - alpha_squared 9y ago
        I don't know if you're aware of this, but your statements are coming off awfully privileged. From the idea that people need to "earn" things, a strangely unique American perspective that you "earn" anything at all (completely pretending that you didn't start off ahead in a lot of ways anyway). To the idea that "its pretty simple" [sic] and that the blindingly obvious solution is to just "own the things you use" - a luxury that not many people can do.

sintaxi 9y ago

Perhaps you can't afford to live in the Bay Area. Live elsewhere.

pascalxus 9y ago

Thank you for bringing this up. Don't be afraid to sound like a broken record, there are so many uninformed voters out there. We need the repetition. But, one thing we have to be careful of: If you place constraints on builders: such as requiring affordable housing, it reduces the amount of supply thus making the problem worse for everyone. What we really need, is more supply. Lots of deregulation to encourage as much building as we can possibly get