6 ms·

>People are selfish; if they make a big investment and you're about to reduce its value, they will fight tooth and nail. You're damn right. I assume you don't

>People are selfish; if they make a big investment and you're about to reduce its value, they will fight tooth and nail. You're damn right. I assume you don't give half your paycheck away either. >Any conversation about 'right', 'wrong', 'moral', it all goes out the window. Right wrong and moral? From perspective of whom? Those are such subjective constructs. Is it right, wrong or moral to actively attempt to triple the population of an already densely populated area when there are millions of underutilized acreage in the continental US? >It really sucks that so much of peoples' value is often tied up in a single property. It would be a gobsmackingly terrible investment decision, if you didn't need shelter to live reasonably well. It's actually a pretty decent investment, but does involve risk. Instead of paying someone rent and owning jack shit, you are paying a mortgage and keeping at least some of that money. Most houses will increase in value as well. Also, your mortgage payment won't go up every few years like rents do, particularly in densely populated areas. You also get a decent tax break on a mortgage. You can also borrow against it at much better rates than cards when you are in a pinch (or are even unemployed). >These people are being incredibly selfish, and that is reprehensible. Which people? The people who bought houses, or the people who want to devalue someone else's home so they can get cheaper rent in a already overpopulated area that they just have to move to? That isn't entirely clear to me.

nine_k 9y ago
> millions of underutilized acreage in the continental US? It's that land in Bay Area and SF which is underutilized. Because high density makes sense. Yes, I enjoy living in NYC. > devalue someone else's home A house is not money. It does not have a guaranteed value. It's property, like stock. If one's shares go down because of e.g. competition, people don't see it as an unjust assault.
- prklmn 9y ago
  Don’t confuse yourself - YOU don’t see it as an unjust assault, not “people.” The 64% of Americans who do own a home would say otherwise. Also, houses are not like stock, nobody lives in stock.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    It seems to me that the group of people with nothing to lose (equity) and everything to gain (lower rents) never see it as unjust.
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    We all need shelter and anything you do to artificially suppress the markets ability to serve this need has extremely negative consequences on a majority of the bay area population. Would it be fair to artifically limit access to other essentials like education or proper nutrition? By artificially constraining supply you are forcing externalities onto renters as well as new homebuyers, and in the same breath limiting others ability to meet this demand with the land they own. For the majority that can't afford the inflated rent you just kicked them out or made it impossible for them to even move here to seek opportunity. I do not see how this can be just.
    - prklmn 9y ago
      We all need shelter - I cannot argue with that. However, we all don’t need shelter in the Bay Area. There is a great sense of entitlement in thinking that anyone should be able to move to any city they so choose and live comfortably. Pick a different city to find opportunity if you can’t afford to move to San Francisco. Space is at a premium, it’s no secret. I’m not against development in general, but in the case where you buy a piece of property in an area on the premise that there are 5 other homes in the area, and then artificially, as you say, 3 homes replace what used to be 1 home for a total of 7 homes, I wouldn’t be happy, and neither would you.
      - asabjorn 9y ago
        For the character to change a large percentage of landowners need to decide to meet the demand by building new housing or increasing density. Why is it reasonable for possibly a minority of landowners to limit a large percentage of other landowners from changing the use of their land to meet demand? Especially if a voting majority desire the change in density?
asabjorn 9y ago
>Right wrong and moral? From perspective of whom? Those are such subjective constructs. Is it right, wrong or moral to actively attempt to triple the population of an already densely populated area when there are millions of underutilized acreage in the continental US? If bay area land was not underutilized you would not need zoning to artificially constrain housing supply. We would also not be supply constrained on housing. Artificially causing a housing shortage is arguably immoral because it cause high housing costs that in effect limits access to the rare opportunities found here. It makes it almost impossible to grow up with lower middle class parents or work in a low-pay low-skilled position, and mingling with the tech crowd to work your way up. * A snapshot of more recent U.S. Census migration numbers shows that nearly three-quarters of those who have left California for other states since 2007 earn less than $50k a year. * San Francisco's African American population has declined from 13.4% of the population in 1970 to 6.1% * 41 percent of San Franciscans spend 30 to 50 percent on rent, despite a lot of rent control for longer-tenure residents and a population average income being $104k as well as median $77k It also limits the number of and kind of opportunities that can be found here.
closeparen 9y ago
> devalue someone else's home Maybe devalue the actual structure, but upzoned land is worth more. The only people getting economically screwed here are condo owners.
- wbl 9y ago
  Not really. They also own part of the land and can redevelop. It's people in maxed out land that get screwed.
dbkelly 9y ago
Exactly. It's funny to me when people call the existing land owners selfish. You know, I feel that I have the fundamental right to live on the Upper West Side in NYC for cheap. I want views of Central Park and I want 6 bedrooms. For cheap. Just cuz. Because, you know, I just deserve it.
damnyou 9y ago
Nice to see xenophobia being openly advocated on HN.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Maybe you should look up that word before you throw it around.
  - damnyou 9y ago
    I'm on very solid ground calling NIMBYism xenophobic. (It is also racist given how people of color were systematically excluded from housing until very recently.)
    - Clubber 9y ago
      So xenophobia is fear of people other countries. NIMBY means "Not in my back yard." That includes everything from HUD housing, to nuclear power plants, to fracking, to prisons. I don't see how being afraid of nuclear disasters is in any way xenophobic. I also don't see how not wanting your property devalued by building cheaper houses is either. I think you don't have a clear understanding of what those things are, particularly in regards to the article we're discussing which happens to be in present day time. Or maybe that's your "I want to win" tactic and you are just throwing it out there to see if it will stick. That might work in some corners of the internet, but it doesn't seem to be working here. If you have a rational argument about the discussion, I invite you to present it.
      - damnyou 9y ago
        Xenophobia is fear or loathing of outsiders. Nuclear plants are a ridiculous strawman. We're talking about places for people — living, breathing human beings, with thoughts, dreams and aspirations — to live in. Ensuring other people have a place to live is more important than your property values and neighborhood character. I have an extremely clear understanding of how the white upper middle class has systematically used the state's monopoly on violence to exclude anyone else from joining their ranks.
shostack 9y ago
>"You also get a decent tax break on a mortgage." Used to get a decent tax break. But Republicans made sure to stick it to Blue states with reducing the mortgage cap for deduction from $1M to $500k.
- nasredin 9y ago
  I have no idea why this is not a huge grab-your-pitchforks thing in California.
  - shostack 9y ago
    It is, but we're a Blue state without the representation warranted for our size because of how our system works.
- infinite8s 9y ago
  That's only for newly purchased homes, so current jumbo mortgages can still deduct for up to $1M in principal.

nine_k 9y ago

> millions of underutilized acreage in the continental US? It's that land in Bay Area and SF which is underutilized. Because high density makes sense. Yes, I enjoy living in NYC. > devalue someone else's home A house is not money. It does not have a guaranteed value. It's property, like stock. If one's shares go down because of e.g. competition, people don't see it as an unjust assault.

prklmn 9y ago
Don’t confuse yourself - YOU don’t see it as an unjust assault, not “people.” The 64% of Americans who do own a home would say otherwise. Also, houses are not like stock, nobody lives in stock.
- Clubber 9y ago
  It seems to me that the group of people with nothing to lose (equity) and everything to gain (lower rents) never see it as unjust.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  We all need shelter and anything you do to artificially suppress the markets ability to serve this need has extremely negative consequences on a majority of the bay area population. Would it be fair to artifically limit access to other essentials like education or proper nutrition? By artificially constraining supply you are forcing externalities onto renters as well as new homebuyers, and in the same breath limiting others ability to meet this demand with the land they own. For the majority that can't afford the inflated rent you just kicked them out or made it impossible for them to even move here to seek opportunity. I do not see how this can be just.
  - prklmn 9y ago
    We all need shelter - I cannot argue with that. However, we all don’t need shelter in the Bay Area. There is a great sense of entitlement in thinking that anyone should be able to move to any city they so choose and live comfortably. Pick a different city to find opportunity if you can’t afford to move to San Francisco. Space is at a premium, it’s no secret. I’m not against development in general, but in the case where you buy a piece of property in an area on the premise that there are 5 other homes in the area, and then artificially, as you say, 3 homes replace what used to be 1 home for a total of 7 homes, I wouldn’t be happy, and neither would you.
    - asabjorn 9y ago
      For the character to change a large percentage of landowners need to decide to meet the demand by building new housing or increasing density. Why is it reasonable for possibly a minority of landowners to limit a large percentage of other landowners from changing the use of their land to meet demand? Especially if a voting majority desire the change in density?

asabjorn 9y ago

>Right wrong and moral? From perspective of whom? Those are such subjective constructs. Is it right, wrong or moral to actively attempt to triple the population of an already densely populated area when there are millions of underutilized acreage in the continental US? If bay area land was not underutilized you would not need zoning to artificially constrain housing supply. We would also not be supply constrained on housing. Artificially causing a housing shortage is arguably immoral because it cause high housing costs that in effect limits access to the rare opportunities found here. It makes it almost impossible to grow up with lower middle class parents or work in a low-pay low-skilled position, and mingling with the tech crowd to work your way up. * A snapshot of more recent U.S. Census migration numbers shows that nearly three-quarters of those who have left California for other states since 2007 earn less than $50k a year. * San Francisco's African American population has declined from 13.4% of the population in 1970 to 6.1% * 41 percent of San Franciscans spend 30 to 50 percent on rent, despite a lot of rent control for longer-tenure residents and a population average income being $104k as well as median $77k It also limits the number of and kind of opportunities that can be found here.

closeparen 9y ago

> devalue someone else's home Maybe devalue the actual structure, but upzoned land is worth more. The only people getting economically screwed here are condo owners.

wbl 9y ago
Not really. They also own part of the land and can redevelop. It's people in maxed out land that get screwed.

dbkelly 9y ago

Exactly. It's funny to me when people call the existing land owners selfish. You know, I feel that I have the fundamental right to live on the Upper West Side in NYC for cheap. I want views of Central Park and I want 6 bedrooms. For cheap. Just cuz. Because, you know, I just deserve it.

damnyou 9y ago

Nice to see xenophobia being openly advocated on HN.

Clubber 9y ago
Maybe you should look up that word before you throw it around.
- damnyou 9y ago
  I'm on very solid ground calling NIMBYism xenophobic. (It is also racist given how people of color were systematically excluded from housing until very recently.)
  - Clubber 9y ago
    So xenophobia is fear of people other countries. NIMBY means "Not in my back yard." That includes everything from HUD housing, to nuclear power plants, to fracking, to prisons. I don't see how being afraid of nuclear disasters is in any way xenophobic. I also don't see how not wanting your property devalued by building cheaper houses is either. I think you don't have a clear understanding of what those things are, particularly in regards to the article we're discussing which happens to be in present day time. Or maybe that's your "I want to win" tactic and you are just throwing it out there to see if it will stick. That might work in some corners of the internet, but it doesn't seem to be working here. If you have a rational argument about the discussion, I invite you to present it.
    - damnyou 9y ago
      Xenophobia is fear or loathing of outsiders. Nuclear plants are a ridiculous strawman. We're talking about places for people — living, breathing human beings, with thoughts, dreams and aspirations — to live in. Ensuring other people have a place to live is more important than your property values and neighborhood character. I have an extremely clear understanding of how the white upper middle class has systematically used the state's monopoly on violence to exclude anyone else from joining their ranks.

shostack 9y ago

>"You also get a decent tax break on a mortgage." Used to get a decent tax break. But Republicans made sure to stick it to Blue states with reducing the mortgage cap for deduction from $1M to $500k.

nasredin 9y ago
I have no idea why this is not a huge grab-your-pitchforks thing in California.
- shostack 9y ago
  It is, but we're a Blue state without the representation warranted for our size because of how our system works.
infinite8s 9y ago
That's only for newly purchased homes, so current jumbo mortgages can still deduct for up to $1M in principal.