5 ms·

this is related to an article i just submitted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16478780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16478780 it costs too much t

this is related to an article i just submitted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16478780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16478780 it costs too much to live here because of zoning. zoning is largely driven by local governments, dominated by homeowners who benefit when prices rise. but california might fix it with sb-827, which would prevent local governments from banning density near transit hubs. california builds <100k units per year. McKinsey did a deep dive that shows that sb-827 could unlock 3 million units—this would be transformational. https://standupcalifornia.com https://standupcalifornia.com (this is my site supporting sb-827) please, if you care about california, learn about these issues and support sb-827!!!

nosuchthing 9y ago
Note that upvotes should come from https://news.ycombinator.com/newest https://news.ycombinator.com/newest it appears to penalize the submission for voting directly on your linked HN page
davidw 9y ago
It'd help fix it, but California's dug itself into such a deep hole that it'll take a while to fix it even with good measures like that one. The statistic that always amazes me is how Tokyo built more housing than the entire state of California in 2014. https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-... If you (as in the generic you, not the comment I'm responding to) live in CA, and care about this stuff, you should get involved with the YIMBY folks there. They're doing great work, and achieving real results.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  Tokyo is huge though, it's population is about 1/3 that of the whole of California. So we are talking about a ratio of only 3+ in housing built per capita. Significant for sure, but hardly bizzare.
  - davidw 9y ago
    That an entire huge state cannot compete with an already somewhat dense city is mind boggling to me.
  - krausejj 9y ago
    i got so deep here, i went and looked at US Census Building Permit data for MSAs: https://standupcalifornia.com/peers https://standupcalifornia.com/peers This is all primary research. The most shocking piece was that cities like Sacramento are permitting half as much housing per capita as peer cities like Seattle. Land is not the issue—this is a policy failure. But, we can fix it :)
- krausejj 9y ago
  absolutely. if you want to go beyond simply pressuring politicians on sb-827, and be part of continued movement to increase housing affordability in california, you should support the YIMBYs. also the "head yimby's" Q&A on the bill with Vox is a must-read: https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/sb827-california-housing-crisis https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s...
  - davidw 9y ago
    Maybe they're doing it but keeping quiet about it, but I'm kind of surprised VC type people aren't funding the YIMBYs in a massive way. Think of how many millions of their investment dollars simply go towards paying exorbitant rents in SF and elsewhere in the bay area.
    - prostoalex 9y ago
      That implies a VC deploying capital in a place with cheap rents will harvest higher ROI. But the biggest exits so far (WhatsApp, Snap) don’t reflect that.
      - davidw 9y ago
        They could get more bang for their buck in the bay area (which they aren't likely to leave anytime soon) if housing prices weren't quite so crazy.
        prostoalex 9y ago
        That can also be accomplished by using more productive frameworks and infrastructure services that allow a company to hire fewer people to begin with. But I think what you’re describing happens with larger companies - setups where engineers are in the Bay Area and support is some place else like Nashville or Austin are becoming more commonplace.
prostoalex 9y ago
> it costs too much to live here because of zoning I am somewhat skeptical of a large complex problem having an easy, magical, fix-all solution. LA construction (downtown area specifically, which is close to transit and zoned for pretty much anything) is booming https://la.curbed.com/2017/1/23/14364926/cranes-los-angeles-construction-skyline https://la.curbed.com/2017/1/23/14364926/cranes-los-angeles-... but the dream of the dirt-cheap units remains a pie in the sky http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/when-it-comes-to-affordable-housing-for-a-lucky-few/article_c0b81796-1389-11e5-9c37-13b8e8a27071.html http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/when-it-comes-to-affordab... And it's not because developers dislike money. 1) Construction labor is expensive in California, a good number of occupations (electricians, etc.) are unionized, which leaves little alternative. 2) Code compliance is expensive, and not just in some bureaucratic-red-tape way. Coastal California is on a fault line, so there are earthquake safety regulations, fire code requirements, etc. Folks from Millennium Tower in SF probably wish there were more regulations as far as ground inspections and surveys. 3) Parking spaces are expensive to build and are still required by the building codes. As millennials mature, public transit use is declining and car ownership is on the rise https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/01/31/80354/transit-ridership-is-dropping-and-rising-car-owner/ https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/01/31/80354/transit-ridership... 4) Land near transit hubs is not cheap. 5) Modern construction materials are not getting cheaper. 6) Unless you're a giant construction firm, there are waiting times associated with heavy equipment, such as building cranes, bulldozers, excavators, etc. as it's typically leased and it might be contracted out to another job. Unless you are able to procure a major cost advantage on building materials, labor costs or skirt a few regulations in the building code and get away with it, you're unlikely to end up with very cheap housing in a major city.
- Karrot_Kream 9y ago
  I'm mystified as to why big Californian cities still put parking on building codes. NYC and Chicago have accepted that parking isn't a right, and parking regulations here make it feel like more of the same NIMBY-ism that retards growth in the state.
  - prostoalex 9y ago
kbrackbill 9y ago
FYI the link to my state senator's (Nancy Skinner's) site is broken- it's http://sd9.senate.ca.gov/ http://sd9.senate.ca.gov/ but should be http://sd09.senate.ca.gov/ http://sd09.senate.ca.gov/
- krausejj 9y ago
  fixed. thanks.

nosuchthing 9y ago

Note that upvotes should come from https://news.ycombinator.com/newest https://news.ycombinator.com/newest it appears to penalize the submission for voting directly on your linked HN page

davidw 9y ago

It'd help fix it, but California's dug itself into such a deep hole that it'll take a while to fix it even with good measures like that one. The statistic that always amazes me is how Tokyo built more housing than the entire state of California in 2014. https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-... If you (as in the generic you, not the comment I'm responding to) live in CA, and care about this stuff, you should get involved with the YIMBY folks there. They're doing great work, and achieving real results.

adrianratnapala 9y ago
Tokyo is huge though, it's population is about 1/3 that of the whole of California. So we are talking about a ratio of only 3+ in housing built per capita. Significant for sure, but hardly bizzare.
- davidw 9y ago
  That an entire huge state cannot compete with an already somewhat dense city is mind boggling to me.
- krausejj 9y ago
  i got so deep here, i went and looked at US Census Building Permit data for MSAs: https://standupcalifornia.com/peers https://standupcalifornia.com/peers This is all primary research. The most shocking piece was that cities like Sacramento are permitting half as much housing per capita as peer cities like Seattle. Land is not the issue—this is a policy failure. But, we can fix it :)
krausejj 9y ago
absolutely. if you want to go beyond simply pressuring politicians on sb-827, and be part of continued movement to increase housing affordability in california, you should support the YIMBYs. also the "head yimby's" Q&A on the bill with Vox is a must-read: https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/sb827-california-housing-crisis https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s...
- davidw 9y ago
  Maybe they're doing it but keeping quiet about it, but I'm kind of surprised VC type people aren't funding the YIMBYs in a massive way. Think of how many millions of their investment dollars simply go towards paying exorbitant rents in SF and elsewhere in the bay area.
  - prostoalex 9y ago
    That implies a VC deploying capital in a place with cheap rents will harvest higher ROI. But the biggest exits so far (WhatsApp, Snap) don’t reflect that.
    - davidw 9y ago
      They could get more bang for their buck in the bay area (which they aren't likely to leave anytime soon) if housing prices weren't quite so crazy.
      - prostoalex 9y ago
        That can also be accomplished by using more productive frameworks and infrastructure services that allow a company to hire fewer people to begin with. But I think what you’re describing happens with larger companies - setups where engineers are in the Bay Area and support is some place else like Nashville or Austin are becoming more commonplace.

prostoalex 9y ago

> it costs too much to live here because of zoning I am somewhat skeptical of a large complex problem having an easy, magical, fix-all solution. LA construction (downtown area specifically, which is close to transit and zoned for pretty much anything) is booming https://la.curbed.com/2017/1/23/14364926/cranes-los-angeles-construction-skyline https://la.curbed.com/2017/1/23/14364926/cranes-los-angeles-... but the dream of the dirt-cheap units remains a pie in the sky http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/when-it-comes-to-affordable-housing-for-a-lucky-few/article_c0b81796-1389-11e5-9c37-13b8e8a27071.html http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/when-it-comes-to-affordab... And it's not because developers dislike money. 1) Construction labor is expensive in California, a good number of occupations (electricians, etc.) are unionized, which leaves little alternative. 2) Code compliance is expensive, and not just in some bureaucratic-red-tape way. Coastal California is on a fault line, so there are earthquake safety regulations, fire code requirements, etc. Folks from Millennium Tower in SF probably wish there were more regulations as far as ground inspections and surveys. 3) Parking spaces are expensive to build and are still required by the building codes. As millennials mature, public transit use is declining and car ownership is on the rise https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/01/31/80354/transit-ridership-is-dropping-and-rising-car-owner/ https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/01/31/80354/transit-ridership... 4) Land near transit hubs is not cheap. 5) Modern construction materials are not getting cheaper. 6) Unless you're a giant construction firm, there are waiting times associated with heavy equipment, such as building cranes, bulldozers, excavators, etc. as it's typically leased and it might be contracted out to another job. Unless you are able to procure a major cost advantage on building materials, labor costs or skirt a few regulations in the building code and get away with it, you're unlikely to end up with very cheap housing in a major city.

Karrot_Kream 9y ago
I'm mystified as to why big Californian cities still put parking on building codes. NYC and Chicago have accepted that parking isn't a right, and parking regulations here make it feel like more of the same NIMBY-ism that retards growth in the state.
- prostoalex 9y ago

kbrackbill 9y ago

FYI the link to my state senator's (Nancy Skinner's) site is broken- it's http://sd9.senate.ca.gov/ http://sd9.senate.ca.gov/ but should be http://sd09.senate.ca.gov/ http://sd09.senate.ca.gov/

krausejj 9y ago
fixed. thanks.