9 ms·

Who caused the Bay Area’s housing shortage?

39 points by tim_sw 9y ago

roflchoppa 9y ago
Ah, I don’t mind the new housing developments, what does become frustrating is having to deal with all the traffic generated by the kids going to school in the morning. Are there alternatives to mandatory school buses, any research into this?
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Buses are better than each precious child being separately driven by an idle parent.
bartart 9y ago
A self-centered desire to preserve an environmentally unfriendly suburbia at the expense of others who wanted to share in the region's prosperity contributed the shortage. In the article the polls cited say that people think it was profit seeking developers and "technology companies who add jobs". Clearly instead of accommodating these desirable jobs we should give ample incentive for them to go elsewhere.
littlestymaar 9y ago
The XXth century's “American way of life” myth, with individual homes in suburbs and a car to go to work. That just doesn't scale well, espacially with the geography of the Bay Area. And if you're really looking for a “who”: the car manufacturers who fuelled this myth through advertising.
- auxym 9y ago
  Car and oil corporations, and not just advertising: lots of lots of lobbying, too.
  - littlestymaar 9y ago
    You're indeed right, but advertising is even more pernicious than lobbying: it makes people love the problem.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fricat1ve 9y ago
Not one mention of Prop 13? Poor reporting. It's basically the rent control story writ large. Everyone who bought in the 20th century has such an "amazing deal" that they won't give it up unless you a) entice them with a better deal or b) gore their oxen and repeal 13.
- closure 9y ago
  How does prop 13 cause a housing crisis? It certainly entices people to hold and rent properties they own rather than sell, but those units are still part of the housing stock. I think repealing prop 13 for commercial properties makes sense as a way to raise tax revenue, but don’t see doing so for residential property having an impact on housing costs.
  - surfmike 9y ago
    One way: it discourages people from moving to a downsized home when that's appropriate.
  - chroma 9y ago
    > How does prop 13 cause a housing crisis? Because it heavily discourages people from selling their houses, reducing turnover and with it the potential for redevelopment. Without prop 13, houses would be re-assessed every few years. The owners' taxes would increase (or decrease) as the value of their home changed. If property values increased enough, the taxes would encourage them to sell the property for a tidy sum and move someplace cheaper. A new buyer is much more likely to demolish and redevelop than the existing owner.
  - bufordsharkley 9y ago
    Let's say that your town is considering whether to preserve a zoning policy of all single family homes with a large minimum lot size, or is looking to allow density. What would prevent you from supporting the lower-density option? One reason may be that you are concerned that restricting the development of land would drive scarcity, leading land values to rise (which would cause your property tax to rise). You're effectively forced to pay for the cost of rising land prices. ...Now, if you are sheltered from rising land values, as per Prop 13, you now suffer no repercussions from a downzoning, and in fact may be completely indifferent to how the land market is behaving. Many homeowners are now free to act in their own best interest (which means downzoning), instead of being incentivized to create capacity for more housing.
shiftoutbox 9y ago
Asian speculators .
elvirs 9y ago
I dont understand whats the outrage is about. Bay Area / San Francisco housing market is tough because that area is special. Its special because its home to world's most innovative companies that pays its staff world's highest salaries. So it basically became an exclusive neighborhood for the wealthiest and most talented (demanded) people. And it stay special because those who are not in demand cant afford to live there. You think it will be better if housing became cheaper and all those who could not afford to live there now would be able to move there and turn the place into a shit show like Queens and Brooklyn have become? Overcrowded houses with too many cars on the street, all the double parking and chaos not to mention filth on the streets and the noise? You cant afford it for a reason, if you were needed there Google would offer you a salary high enough for you to be able to afford it. Everybody is basically in outrage that they cant get into and live in this exclusive, high class neighborhood but if everybody could afford to live there it would not be exclusive and high class anymore and those things that attracted you there back then would not be in place any more and the area would become into a place that you run away from in the first place.
- RubenSandwich 9y ago
  You must not of visited Queens or Brooklyn since the late 80s because they are now very vibrate and livable communities.
  - elvirs 9y ago
    I live in New York and unfortunately have to be in Queens and Brooklyn regularly. if circling the neighboring blocks for 20 minutes every night to find a parking spot is what you call a livable residential community then ok.
- OpenDrapery 9y ago
  Interesting that you think SF is special because Google is there. What made it special before Google existed? What made it special before computers existed? It's geography, climate, and culture make it special. Tech companies don't get to show up and stake an ownership claim on this stuff. If the hippies told the hipsters "we were here first!", they wouldn't be entirely wrong.

39 points by tim_sw 9y ago

Ah, I don’t mind the new housing developments, what does become frustrating is having to deal with all the traffic generated by the kids going to school in the morning. Are there alternatives to mandatory school buses, any research into this?

jessaustin 9y ago
Buses are better than each precious child being separately driven by an idle parent.

bartart 9y ago

A self-centered desire to preserve an environmentally unfriendly suburbia at the expense of others who wanted to share in the region's prosperity contributed the shortage. In the article the polls cited say that people think it was profit seeking developers and "technology companies who add jobs". Clearly instead of accommodating these desirable jobs we should give ample incentive for them to go elsewhere.

littlestymaar 9y ago

The XXth century's “American way of life” myth, with individual homes in suburbs and a car to go to work. That just doesn't scale well, espacially with the geography of the Bay Area. And if you're really looking for a “who”: the car manufacturers who fuelled this myth through advertising.

auxym 9y ago
Car and oil corporations, and not just advertising: lots of lots of lobbying, too.
- littlestymaar 9y ago
  You're indeed right, but advertising is even more pernicious than lobbying: it makes people love the problem.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

fricat1ve 9y ago

Not one mention of Prop 13? Poor reporting. It's basically the rent control story writ large. Everyone who bought in the 20th century has such an "amazing deal" that they won't give it up unless you a) entice them with a better deal or b) gore their oxen and repeal 13.

closure 9y ago
How does prop 13 cause a housing crisis? It certainly entices people to hold and rent properties they own rather than sell, but those units are still part of the housing stock. I think repealing prop 13 for commercial properties makes sense as a way to raise tax revenue, but don’t see doing so for residential property having an impact on housing costs.
- surfmike 9y ago
  One way: it discourages people from moving to a downsized home when that's appropriate.
- chroma 9y ago
  > How does prop 13 cause a housing crisis? Because it heavily discourages people from selling their houses, reducing turnover and with it the potential for redevelopment. Without prop 13, houses would be re-assessed every few years. The owners' taxes would increase (or decrease) as the value of their home changed. If property values increased enough, the taxes would encourage them to sell the property for a tidy sum and move someplace cheaper. A new buyer is much more likely to demolish and redevelop than the existing owner.
- bufordsharkley 9y ago
  Let's say that your town is considering whether to preserve a zoning policy of all single family homes with a large minimum lot size, or is looking to allow density. What would prevent you from supporting the lower-density option? One reason may be that you are concerned that restricting the development of land would drive scarcity, leading land values to rise (which would cause your property tax to rise). You're effectively forced to pay for the cost of rising land prices. ...Now, if you are sheltered from rising land values, as per Prop 13, you now suffer no repercussions from a downzoning, and in fact may be completely indifferent to how the land market is behaving. Many homeowners are now free to act in their own best interest (which means downzoning), instead of being incentivized to create capacity for more housing.

shiftoutbox 9y ago

Asian speculators .

elvirs 9y ago

I dont understand whats the outrage is about. Bay Area / San Francisco housing market is tough because that area is special. Its special because its home to world's most innovative companies that pays its staff world's highest salaries. So it basically became an exclusive neighborhood for the wealthiest and most talented (demanded) people. And it stay special because those who are not in demand cant afford to live there. You think it will be better if housing became cheaper and all those who could not afford to live there now would be able to move there and turn the place into a shit show like Queens and Brooklyn have become? Overcrowded houses with too many cars on the street, all the double parking and chaos not to mention filth on the streets and the noise? You cant afford it for a reason, if you were needed there Google would offer you a salary high enough for you to be able to afford it. Everybody is basically in outrage that they cant get into and live in this exclusive, high class neighborhood but if everybody could afford to live there it would not be exclusive and high class anymore and those things that attracted you there back then would not be in place any more and the area would become into a place that you run away from in the first place.

RubenSandwich 9y ago
You must not of visited Queens or Brooklyn since the late 80s because they are now very vibrate and livable communities.
- elvirs 9y ago
  I live in New York and unfortunately have to be in Queens and Brooklyn regularly. if circling the neighboring blocks for 20 minutes every night to find a parking spot is what you call a livable residential community then ok.
OpenDrapery 9y ago
Interesting that you think SF is special because Google is there. What made it special before Google existed? What made it special before computers existed? It's geography, climate, and culture make it special. Tech companies don't get to show up and stake an ownership claim on this stuff. If the hippies told the hipsters "we were here first!", they wouldn't be entirely wrong.