8 ms·

Soviet-style central planning is not "the market." Euclidean zoning is Soviet-style central planning.

lisper 9y ago
That's ridiculous. Soviet-style central planning is not what is happening in the Bay area. The zoning there is being done by democratically elected governments and the land being developed is privately owned and can be freely bought and sold. The resulting high prices are absolutely the result of market forces.
- damnyou 9y ago
  Why are democratically elected governments and Soviet-style planning mutually exclusive? Democratically elected governments do all sorts of horrible and unjust things. For modern examples see Erdogan and Duterte. The land itself is privately owned, sure, but undeveloped land is not very useful.
  - lisper 9y ago
    > undeveloped land is not very useful I love hiking in redwood forests. I love peace and quiet. I love not having to deal with traffic. So I think undeveloped land is very useful.
    - damnyou 9y ago
      You are free to buy the redwood forests, pay a yearly land value tax on them (which goes up as demand increases, unlike Prop 13) and then restrict access as you wish. But redwood forests are a distraction. The main problem is SFH which can and would be replaced with duplexes and fourplexes if the market were allowed to work.
      - lisper 9y ago
        > You are free to buy the redwood forests Much of the forest land on the peninsula is privately owned, not by individuals, but by conservation organizations. > The main problem is SFH Except that people like their yards and pools. All else being equal, denser housing is better. But all else is rarely equal. Almost invariably, increased density comes with increased population. The SFH it replaces doesn't get turned back into open space, it remains SFH. Or it turns into more MFH, so now you have N times as many people living in the same space. That is the problem.
        damnyou 9y ago
        I don't have a moral objection to SFH. If people like they can keep paying for their SFH via increased property taxes. But Prop 13 breaks that feedback loop. Immigration is not a problem. It is an opportunity. N people live in a place. K people want to move there. You can either find ways to accommodate N+K people, or you can choose not to and have the richest people drive out the poorest (or the middle class if you start building affordable housing). Only one of those two options is classist and xenophobic. Take your pick.
    - linkregister 9y ago
      Nobody has recommended this straw man of a proposal. This is an example of an argument made in bad faith. The topic is development of single-story housing into apartments. The Bay Area is rife with short houses around transit terminals. You would have less traffic in the Valley if there were more apartments, so employees could bike and walk to work. They now commute from neighboring cities.
      - lisper 9y ago
        > You would have less traffic in the Valley if there were more apartments, so employees could bike and walk to work. This assumes that all of the houses vacated by currently commuting employees moving into apartments near transit (and thus becoming non-commuters) would be replaced by people who don't commute. But that's extremely unlikely to be the case. Furthermore, all of the people living near transit would still drive on occasion, so traffic would almost certainly get worse.
        linkregister 9y ago
        Traffic on the weekend? Sure, but that is distributed aside from the typical choke points on 101 and 880.
        linkregister 9y ago
        Most would use the transit option, especially since the proximity to transit would be included in the price. Other potential nudges would be to waive parking requirements for such development, thus denying parking places for the residents.

That's ridiculous. Soviet-style central planning is not what is happening in the Bay area. The zoning there is being done by democratically elected governments and the land being developed is privately owned and can be freely bought and sold. The resulting high prices are absolutely the result of market forces.

damnyou 9y ago
Why are democratically elected governments and Soviet-style planning mutually exclusive? Democratically elected governments do all sorts of horrible and unjust things. For modern examples see Erdogan and Duterte. The land itself is privately owned, sure, but undeveloped land is not very useful.
- lisper 9y ago
  > undeveloped land is not very useful I love hiking in redwood forests. I love peace and quiet. I love not having to deal with traffic. So I think undeveloped land is very useful.
  - damnyou 9y ago
    You are free to buy the redwood forests, pay a yearly land value tax on them (which goes up as demand increases, unlike Prop 13) and then restrict access as you wish. But redwood forests are a distraction. The main problem is SFH which can and would be replaced with duplexes and fourplexes if the market were allowed to work.
    - lisper 9y ago
      > You are free to buy the redwood forests Much of the forest land on the peninsula is privately owned, not by individuals, but by conservation organizations. > The main problem is SFH Except that people like their yards and pools. All else being equal, denser housing is better. But all else is rarely equal. Almost invariably, increased density comes with increased population. The SFH it replaces doesn't get turned back into open space, it remains SFH. Or it turns into more MFH, so now you have N times as many people living in the same space. That is the problem.
      - damnyou 9y ago
        I don't have a moral objection to SFH. If people like they can keep paying for their SFH via increased property taxes. But Prop 13 breaks that feedback loop. Immigration is not a problem. It is an opportunity. N people live in a place. K people want to move there. You can either find ways to accommodate N+K people, or you can choose not to and have the richest people drive out the poorest (or the middle class if you start building affordable housing). Only one of those two options is classist and xenophobic. Take your pick.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    Nobody has recommended this straw man of a proposal. This is an example of an argument made in bad faith. The topic is development of single-story housing into apartments. The Bay Area is rife with short houses around transit terminals. You would have less traffic in the Valley if there were more apartments, so employees could bike and walk to work. They now commute from neighboring cities.
    - lisper 9y ago
      > You would have less traffic in the Valley if there were more apartments, so employees could bike and walk to work. This assumes that all of the houses vacated by currently commuting employees moving into apartments near transit (and thus becoming non-commuters) would be replaced by people who don't commute. But that's extremely unlikely to be the case. Furthermore, all of the people living near transit would still drive on occasion, so traffic would almost certainly get worse.
      - linkregister 9y ago
        Traffic on the weekend? Sure, but that is distributed aside from the typical choke points on 101 and 880.
      - linkregister 9y ago
        Most would use the transit option, especially since the proximity to transit would be included in the price. Other potential nudges would be to waive parking requirements for such development, thus denying parking places for the residents.