9 ms·

This is all tinkering around the edges. It may help some, but in general it's still not sufficient to address the problems with housing in this state, and espec

by sidlls 9y ago

This is all tinkering around the edges. It may help some, but in general it's still not sufficient to address the problems with housing in this state, and especially in the hardest hit regions (e.g. Bay Area). I really think that a policy of much denser housing in urban areas must be enacted, including liberal application of eminent domain to reduce the existing stock of low-density homes. Requiring minimum heights within a tiny area around transit hubs helps but just doesn't even come close to addressing the problem. Applying additional taxes on individual owner dwellings (including single-family homes, condos and townhouses) that aren't primary residences would be a huge step also. It should be very expensive for someone to own these properties and not occupy them. At the same time, significant tax discounts tied to passing on the savings to renters for multi-family, high-density dwellings ought to be considered.

ataturk 9y ago
Always with the taking of private property! There is no level of confiscation which can fix the problems that a functioning market could address if allowed to do so. If you need denser housing, might I suggest paying the owners for their property? Is that such an outmoded concept? Forcing people off their land is just so...Chinese.
sid-kap 9y ago
"transit hubs" may have been the wrong term to use... I think he's proposing these new rules anywhere within 1/4-1/2 mile of any transit stop with 15 min frequency or better. So it's probably a larger area than you think.
pzone 9y ago
1) These proposals are good and certainly better than nothing. They'll probably be impossible to pass because they're so radical. Tinkering around the edges is the best you can hope for. In effective politics your goals need to be modest, realistic and incremental. 2) Taxation, tax breaks and subsidies are seriously the wrong way to go. The problem is too much heavy handed manipulation of the market. There are always unintended consequences. These proposals try to chip away the ability of zoning boards to regulate who can build what where. That's the ultimate solution.

by sidlls 9y ago

ataturk 9y ago

Always with the taking of private property! There is no level of confiscation which can fix the problems that a functioning market could address if allowed to do so. If you need denser housing, might I suggest paying the owners for their property? Is that such an outmoded concept? Forcing people off their land is just so...Chinese.

sid-kap 9y ago

"transit hubs" may have been the wrong term to use... I think he's proposing these new rules anywhere within 1/4-1/2 mile of any transit stop with 15 min frequency or better. So it's probably a larger area than you think.

pzone 9y ago

1) These proposals are good and certainly better than nothing. They'll probably be impossible to pass because they're so radical. Tinkering around the edges is the best you can hope for. In effective politics your goals need to be modest, realistic and incremental. 2) Taxation, tax breaks and subsidies are seriously the wrong way to go. The problem is too much heavy handed manipulation of the market. There are always unintended consequences. These proposals try to chip away the ability of zoning boards to regulate who can build what where. That's the ultimate solution.