14 ms·

Just quoting the last paragraph. This is the kind of honesty people need. > Intellectual honesty requires taking numbers seriously. Either we prioritize making

by sampo 9y ago

Just quoting the last paragraph. This is the kind of honesty people need. > Intellectual honesty requires taking numbers seriously. Either we prioritize making the Bay Area affordable for all of us or we don’t. The less housing we build, the more wealth will be trapped in high housing prices. Unless we decide to grow our housing stock to accommodate our economy, we are continuing to choose the interests of those who are rich or who already own their homes over the interests of the struggling middle and working classes.

rb808 9y ago
If density increases the people who will benefit the most are current landowners. If you have single family home on a big lot, its value will go up many times if you can suddenly build an apartment building on it.
- mistermann 9y ago
  That is: a) Correct. b) Beneficial to most participants in the market, well off (mainly due to luck in timing) NIMBY's being the exception.
- epistasis 9y ago
  Yes, in the short term, there are two things that happen: 1) land values go up, 2) housing costs go down. The first may benefit current land owners a lot, but the second is absolutely essential for lower incomes to succeed at all. This is not a zero-sum move, and is fact hugely beneficial to everyone. When there's fixed housing supply, that's when things are closer to a zero-sum economic game.
  - davidw 9y ago
    "Density is how those with less money compete with the rich for expensive land" http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-outbid-rich-urban-land/ http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-ou...
- swimfar 9y ago
  You're correct, but this goes against the idea that it's greedy house owners that are causing all the problems. Maybe they're selfish (I would argue most people are), but it's in their best financial interest for the Bay Area population to increase. The land value will go up, and the relative supply of houses/people goes down. Let's say that right now only 10% (made up number) of the people in the Bay Area can own a house (because of supply, not price). In general that means that the houses are purchased by the wealthiest 10%. If the population goes up 50% now you have to be in the top 7% to afford a house. Yeah, it's a little more complex than this, but in general housing prices aren't going down by building apartments. No one buys a house because they can't find an apartment for sale. If people really want to address the housing issues, they need to start actually listening to people who object to more housing instead of just calling them names. There are legitimate downsides to more housing and higher population that will need to be addressed.
- TomVDB 9y ago
  Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to improve affordable housing.
  - trustno1 9y ago
    At least you admit you’re a selfish asshole.
  - Veelox 9y ago
    I appreciate the reasonable honest tone.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Changing zoning would only directly impact a tiny fraction of current home owners. High rises allow for vastly increased density so only 1-5% of the city could change to cover a 50% population increase.
  - davidw 9y ago
    The conditions do change though, even if the buildings don't: you'll gradually be surrounded by different people as prices climb and climb. Perhaps, sooner or later, they'll look down on you as the undesirable they don't want nearby.
    - TomVDB 9y ago
      Why do you make the assumption somebody is looking down on somebody else? It has nothing to do with the inhabitants. It's about the ugliness of these kind of buildings and everything that goes with increased density (traffic, street parking etc.)
      - CyberDildonics 9y ago
        I'm not clear here, do you own a townhouse or do you own everything you can see from the townhouse? You don't like the 'look' of 'ugly' building? I guess you better save up for the neighboring lots.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  That's not the way it works. The reality is that the apartment building goes up and you house is worth nothing unless the government allows an eminent domain for your property or a developer with the bucks to buy out the neighborhood shows up. Until that happens, your house lost a third of its value because there's an apartment next door. If you're unlucky, rates go up and you're stuck.
  - TomVDB 9y ago
    I don't understand why you're being down voted. Is it really controversial to say that a regular single family house in a single family house neighborhood will go down in value when somebody decides to plant an apartment complex right next to do?
    - kelnos 9y ago
      I think the downvotes are unwarranted, but the point being made is that in a land-scarce environment like SF, a developer would pay out the nose to buy your single-family home, tear it down, and build something with higher density... if the land was zoned for it. Sure, once this happens enough times, and supply starts to meet demand, you're absolutely right in that a single-family home's value will drop when it's adjacent to an apartment complex. (Then again, it could also be quite valuable to someone who wants a single-family home when the norm becomes larger complexes.) Also note that the current value of your home is driven almost entirely by artificial scarcity. There's nothing intrinsic about it that makes it worth so much.
    - stouset 9y ago
      Honestly? I appreciate your willingness to engage in this thread, but I have to say I really don’t care if it does or if it doesn’t. Making a real estate purchase is a risk. Making a huge one is a huge risk. Right now, the Bay Area is prioritizing rewarding the obscenely wealthy and rewarding massive risk-taking by the moderately wealthy. If those risks don’t pan out, but people can afford to live here, I’m not that upset.
      - Spooky23 9y ago
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  Only for the first few redevelopments, after that prices will go down across the board.
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    Even the first few help. You have rich people taking up houses and apartments made for middle class (or possibly even working class), as only rich people can now afford to live in them. If there’s more housing stock, even “luxury” units, they can vacate the lower end units, making room for middle class.
- CyberDildonics 9y ago
  Is the point to make sure land owners don't benefit or is it to add more places to live in an expensive area that is only constrained politically?
charlesdm 9y ago
Who could have guessed, policy makers that serve the hand that feeds them?
- sampo 9y ago
  > policy makers that serve the hand that feeds them? More like, California and Federal level policymakers have been too lenient and let town and city level politicians make too much selfish policy that hurts the state and country level economy and progress. The economic powerhouse areas don't belong only to their current residents. Everyone in the country has a right to strive for wealth and a better life by moving to economically active regions. We shouldn't create a society where your economic class is determined by where you happened to be born.
  - StudentStuff 9y ago
    Slamming the door behind you and looking down on the poors is a common neoliberal philosophy though, its really disconcerting how many people are apt to blame those below them in earnings/stature for being in said situation. No leniency is given, nor help. Very un-Christian, but most of those who claim to be Christian/Catholic do not follow the core teachings of said religion, instead choosing to follow neoliberalism ideology. Its wretched, but that is the society we live in today! Why haven't you picked yourself up by your bootstraps yet? /s
- ajross 9y ago
  Actually no, or not the way you mean. This is a legitimate moral trap: the "policy" at hand is construction permitting and land zoning, and those are almost exclusively local laws and regulations set at the city and county level. Those governments, by design, serve the interests of their local citizens. That is, the population they serve is inherently skewed toward existing property owners. You can't fix this by complaining about money in politics or whatever, that's not why it's happening. The solution has to be at the broader government level (i.e. in Sacramento in this case), wrenching back some of the control that has traditionally been local in the interests of the broader population and not just, say, Palo Alto residents.
debt 9y ago
That's correct; the numbers don't lie. The future of the Bay Area will be outsourcing lower waged jobs that also includes software engineers, QA staff, administrative, etc. to other areas of the state or country where cost of living is less expensive. It's already happening, just ask around. Again, because the value turned around by SWE peeps etc. for tech companies has an actual cap. You can't pay a QA/SW engineer $500k/year just so they can afford live in the Bay Area. They'd have to be one hell of a QA/SW engineer if that was the case. I just don't think it's worth it for tech companies at some point. After all that happens, the jobs left here will be primarily managerial; c-level execs, product managers, business analysts etc. Those too, if the housing situation doesn't improve, will be outsourced to lower cost of living areas as well. Again, it's inevitable given the numbers. Much of the wealth being generated in this area is being sunk back into real estate. The high wages in tech in the Bay Area are high because they're subsidizing a corrupt housing market. Eventually the only people left in the Bay Area will be executives and really high-paid lawyers.
- draw_down 9y ago
  Who will make their lunches?
- bobdole1234 9y ago
  So, Google pulled down 9.9B in profits last quarter. That means if they've got 88k employees, they could hand out somewhere around an EXTRA $450k to every single employee every year and still be in the green. Facebook looks roughly the same. The leverage of a software engineer to produce money is really quite astounding when you get them in large herds. I'm pretty sure the Bay Area is going to be just fine.
- api 9y ago
  > Eventually the only people left in the Bay Area will be executives and really high-paid lawyers. I don't think that's sustainable. This is called working your way so far up the supply chain that you pop off the top and fall out. Eventually the entire supply chain below you collectively asks the question: "Why are we paying these people? What do they do anyway?" Then the supply chain starts looking for ways to wiggle out from under you.
matte_black 9y ago
At what point though can we declare the choice has been made and just lean in to whatever conclusion has been decided? It seems like we’re always stuck in an indecisive state of choosing between the interests of the wealthy and the interests of the struggling, and we can never get out unless we make the “right” choice (which is always implied to be the interests of the struggling) Maybe the choice has already been made, and people just don’t like the outcome. What then? Barring a massive catastrophe or economic downturn I don’t see the Bay Area housing problem getting better in my lifetime.
- tomc1985 9y ago
  That's really easy... the wealthy can generally protect their own interests whereas the needy cannot. Ergo, charity
  - matte_black 9y ago
    Not sure what you’re proposing
- Naritai 9y ago
  Clearly everybody who already owns a home is heavily leaning into the 'make housing as expensive as possible' conclusion. Where these sorts of articles comes from is observers who would like to change that narrative.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    The homeowners aren’t selfish, they are motivated. Why would they act against something that would clearly devalue them? If the roles were reversed I doubt these observers would be calling for a change in narrative.
    - lallysingh 9y ago
      It's a death spiral waiting to happen. Companies will move away from areas where their employees can't get hosting. Not many have to move before the rest start to follow, and the speculative part of the home valuations disappear. Either they let the pressure out gradually or the thing is going to pop.

by sampo 9y ago

rb808 9y ago

If density increases the people who will benefit the most are current landowners. If you have single family home on a big lot, its value will go up many times if you can suddenly build an apartment building on it.

mistermann 9y ago
That is: a) Correct. b) Beneficial to most participants in the market, well off (mainly due to luck in timing) NIMBY's being the exception.
epistasis 9y ago
Yes, in the short term, there are two things that happen: 1) land values go up, 2) housing costs go down. The first may benefit current land owners a lot, but the second is absolutely essential for lower incomes to succeed at all. This is not a zero-sum move, and is fact hugely beneficial to everyone. When there's fixed housing supply, that's when things are closer to a zero-sum economic game.
- davidw 9y ago
  "Density is how those with less money compete with the rich for expensive land" http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-outbid-rich-urban-land/ http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-ou...
swimfar 9y ago
You're correct, but this goes against the idea that it's greedy house owners that are causing all the problems. Maybe they're selfish (I would argue most people are), but it's in their best financial interest for the Bay Area population to increase. The land value will go up, and the relative supply of houses/people goes down. Let's say that right now only 10% (made up number) of the people in the Bay Area can own a house (because of supply, not price). In general that means that the houses are purchased by the wealthiest 10%. If the population goes up 50% now you have to be in the top 7% to afford a house. Yeah, it's a little more complex than this, but in general housing prices aren't going down by building apartments. No one buys a house because they can't find an apartment for sale. If people really want to address the housing issues, they need to start actually listening to people who object to more housing instead of just calling them names. There are legitimate downsides to more housing and higher population that will need to be addressed.
TomVDB 9y ago
Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to improve affordable housing.
- trustno1 9y ago
  At least you admit you’re a selfish asshole.
- Veelox 9y ago
  I appreciate the reasonable honest tone.
- Retric 9y ago
  Changing zoning would only directly impact a tiny fraction of current home owners. High rises allow for vastly increased density so only 1-5% of the city could change to cover a 50% population increase.
- davidw 9y ago
  The conditions do change though, even if the buildings don't: you'll gradually be surrounded by different people as prices climb and climb. Perhaps, sooner or later, they'll look down on you as the undesirable they don't want nearby.
  - TomVDB 9y ago
    Why do you make the assumption somebody is looking down on somebody else? It has nothing to do with the inhabitants. It's about the ugliness of these kind of buildings and everything that goes with increased density (traffic, street parking etc.)
    - CyberDildonics 9y ago
      I'm not clear here, do you own a townhouse or do you own everything you can see from the townhouse? You don't like the 'look' of 'ugly' building? I guess you better save up for the neighboring lots.
Spooky23 9y ago
That's not the way it works. The reality is that the apartment building goes up and you house is worth nothing unless the government allows an eminent domain for your property or a developer with the bucks to buy out the neighborhood shows up. Until that happens, your house lost a third of its value because there's an apartment next door. If you're unlucky, rates go up and you're stuck.
- TomVDB 9y ago
  I don't understand why you're being down voted. Is it really controversial to say that a regular single family house in a single family house neighborhood will go down in value when somebody decides to plant an apartment complex right next to do?
  - kelnos 9y ago
    I think the downvotes are unwarranted, but the point being made is that in a land-scarce environment like SF, a developer would pay out the nose to buy your single-family home, tear it down, and build something with higher density... if the land was zoned for it. Sure, once this happens enough times, and supply starts to meet demand, you're absolutely right in that a single-family home's value will drop when it's adjacent to an apartment complex. (Then again, it could also be quite valuable to someone who wants a single-family home when the norm becomes larger complexes.) Also note that the current value of your home is driven almost entirely by artificial scarcity. There's nothing intrinsic about it that makes it worth so much.
  - stouset 9y ago
    Honestly? I appreciate your willingness to engage in this thread, but I have to say I really don’t care if it does or if it doesn’t. Making a real estate purchase is a risk. Making a huge one is a huge risk. Right now, the Bay Area is prioritizing rewarding the obscenely wealthy and rewarding massive risk-taking by the moderately wealthy. If those risks don’t pan out, but people can afford to live here, I’m not that upset.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
nerfhammer 9y ago
Only for the first few redevelopments, after that prices will go down across the board.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  Even the first few help. You have rich people taking up houses and apartments made for middle class (or possibly even working class), as only rich people can now afford to live in them. If there’s more housing stock, even “luxury” units, they can vacate the lower end units, making room for middle class.
CyberDildonics 9y ago
Is the point to make sure land owners don't benefit or is it to add more places to live in an expensive area that is only constrained politically?

charlesdm 9y ago

Who could have guessed, policy makers that serve the hand that feeds them?

sampo 9y ago
> policy makers that serve the hand that feeds them? More like, California and Federal level policymakers have been too lenient and let town and city level politicians make too much selfish policy that hurts the state and country level economy and progress. The economic powerhouse areas don't belong only to their current residents. Everyone in the country has a right to strive for wealth and a better life by moving to economically active regions. We shouldn't create a society where your economic class is determined by where you happened to be born.
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  Slamming the door behind you and looking down on the poors is a common neoliberal philosophy though, its really disconcerting how many people are apt to blame those below them in earnings/stature for being in said situation. No leniency is given, nor help. Very un-Christian, but most of those who claim to be Christian/Catholic do not follow the core teachings of said religion, instead choosing to follow neoliberalism ideology. Its wretched, but that is the society we live in today! Why haven't you picked yourself up by your bootstraps yet? /s
ajross 9y ago
Actually no, or not the way you mean. This is a legitimate moral trap: the "policy" at hand is construction permitting and land zoning, and those are almost exclusively local laws and regulations set at the city and county level. Those governments, by design, serve the interests of their local citizens. That is, the population they serve is inherently skewed toward existing property owners. You can't fix this by complaining about money in politics or whatever, that's not why it's happening. The solution has to be at the broader government level (i.e. in Sacramento in this case), wrenching back some of the control that has traditionally been local in the interests of the broader population and not just, say, Palo Alto residents.

debt 9y ago

That's correct; the numbers don't lie. The future of the Bay Area will be outsourcing lower waged jobs that also includes software engineers, QA staff, administrative, etc. to other areas of the state or country where cost of living is less expensive. It's already happening, just ask around. Again, because the value turned around by SWE peeps etc. for tech companies has an actual cap. You can't pay a QA/SW engineer $500k/year just so they can afford live in the Bay Area. They'd have to be one hell of a QA/SW engineer if that was the case. I just don't think it's worth it for tech companies at some point. After all that happens, the jobs left here will be primarily managerial; c-level execs, product managers, business analysts etc. Those too, if the housing situation doesn't improve, will be outsourced to lower cost of living areas as well. Again, it's inevitable given the numbers. Much of the wealth being generated in this area is being sunk back into real estate. The high wages in tech in the Bay Area are high because they're subsidizing a corrupt housing market. Eventually the only people left in the Bay Area will be executives and really high-paid lawyers.

draw_down 9y ago
Who will make their lunches?
bobdole1234 9y ago
So, Google pulled down 9.9B in profits last quarter. That means if they've got 88k employees, they could hand out somewhere around an EXTRA $450k to every single employee every year and still be in the green. Facebook looks roughly the same. The leverage of a software engineer to produce money is really quite astounding when you get them in large herds. I'm pretty sure the Bay Area is going to be just fine.
api 9y ago
> Eventually the only people left in the Bay Area will be executives and really high-paid lawyers. I don't think that's sustainable. This is called working your way so far up the supply chain that you pop off the top and fall out. Eventually the entire supply chain below you collectively asks the question: "Why are we paying these people? What do they do anyway?" Then the supply chain starts looking for ways to wiggle out from under you.

matte_black 9y ago

At what point though can we declare the choice has been made and just lean in to whatever conclusion has been decided? It seems like we’re always stuck in an indecisive state of choosing between the interests of the wealthy and the interests of the struggling, and we can never get out unless we make the “right” choice (which is always implied to be the interests of the struggling) Maybe the choice has already been made, and people just don’t like the outcome. What then? Barring a massive catastrophe or economic downturn I don’t see the Bay Area housing problem getting better in my lifetime.

tomc1985 9y ago
That's really easy... the wealthy can generally protect their own interests whereas the needy cannot. Ergo, charity
- matte_black 9y ago
  Not sure what you’re proposing
Naritai 9y ago
Clearly everybody who already owns a home is heavily leaning into the 'make housing as expensive as possible' conclusion. Where these sorts of articles comes from is observers who would like to change that narrative.
- matte_black 9y ago
  The homeowners aren’t selfish, they are motivated. Why would they act against something that would clearly devalue them? If the roles were reversed I doubt these observers would be calling for a change in narrative.
  - lallysingh 9y ago
    It's a death spiral waiting to happen. Companies will move away from areas where their employees can't get hosting. Not many have to move before the rest start to follow, and the speculative part of the home valuations disappear. Either they let the pressure out gradually or the thing is going to pop.