5 ms·

The real housing crisis is the inability of cities like SF to approve redevelopment projects to tear down single story structures and build multistory structure

The real housing crisis is the inability of cities like SF to approve redevelopment projects to tear down single story structures and build multistory structures as fast as is needed by the growth of the economy. We might not like to admit this but part of this problem is us: people vote against putting up an apartment complex across the street from them while claiming that "affordable housing" should simultaneously exist. This leads to all sorts of bad decisions like restricting this building, but when we do build it, setting aside two apartments for "low income" occupants that is intellectually dishonest at best.

helen___keller 8y ago
To add to this, it's not just that restricting the housing supply results in a shortage. Also, because there's systematic restrictions on construction, speculating on a continued housing shortage (and hence consistently high housing prices) is a surefire bet if the housing supply never increases. If people somewhere nearby were building a lot of housing, an individual would feel a lot less certain about committing 7 figures of debt to own a dinky 3 bedroom house built last century, because the value is derived entirely from scarcity. On the other hand, going housepoor on a six figure salary seems like a reasonable choice when you see articles like this https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/28/map-shows-it-may-take-centuries-to-reach-housing-goals-in-the-bay-area/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/28/map-shows-it-may-take... and think that you might not have another chance in your lifetime to afford a house in the area.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  > If people somewhere nearby were building a lot of housing, an individual would feel a lot less certain about committing 7 figures of debt to own a dinky 3 bedroom house built last century, because the value is derived entirely from scarcity. This is absolutely the way people think, but it might actually not be true. The person in question may be able to sell their land for a large multiple of their purchase price, if a developer were able to tear down the structure to build a multi-tenant dwelling. As it currently stands, the maximum economic value that can be derived is based on that of a single family home for the top x% of earners who can afford to buy one. But if you could house ten families on the same land, the economic value probably skyrockets.
  - helen___keller 8y ago
    In my particular case I was starting with the assumption that the single family home remains zoned for single family, but elsewhere in the economic region theres a huge building boom relieving the region of housing scarcity. That said, you are absolutely correct. If building large multifamily dwellings were cheaper & always viable, you would see the cost of a single family home increase to reflect the profitability of doing so (until it is not as profitable, at which point single family homes would start decreasing)
- conanbatt 8y ago
  > speculating on a continued housing shortage (and hence consistently high housing prices) is a surefire bet if the housing supply never increases. Two important concepts about this. The first is that in places like SF, those making the speculation are also the ones that dominate the elections. Figure that SF has a high amount of renters, of the which many are foreigners that can't vote. That shows a skewed and corrupt political system. Second, that such a ploy of decreasing housing shortage is economically inefficient, and thus makes the whole poorer. In an efficient system, the more housing, the more people, the more services and tax income and everybody wins. So how can the home-owners be benefitted more if the pie shrinks than if it grows? Its the tax system that double punishes renters and prizes landlords. SF spends 2,600U$S a month per household. If the city levied its taxes on land instead, it would literally eat up all the rental prices of land, and housing would be worth next to nothing: but because instaed it punishes workers coming into the city with sales taxes, and companies with corporate taxes, landlords actually get a double pay: they get paid by the renters twice.
ascales 8y ago
That isn't the problem everywhere. There are places where the lack of planning or zoning results in less than equitable and ethical development. Building lowest-bidder style "luxury" apartments that just start falling apart after move in day with the developer moving to the next construction project the next week. There's a line between freezing a city as is, and overly aggressive development where the buildings you build are blights in less than a decade.
- FiveSquared 8y ago
  Then find a middle balance!
Gibbon1 8y ago
I always see this parroted. But there is two facts that come into play that are ignored biy this bit of propaganda. 1. It's not just housing but transportation infrastructure. Of which SF has developed nothing other than the 3rd St light rail and the Central Subway. After that there is _nothing_ in the pipeline. Which means nothing will be built for the next 15-20 years. 2. They are building new multifamily. Cost is about $700-1000 a square foot. Unlike you I had a talk with my insurance agent. Guess what, _rebuilding_ costs between $600-1000 a square foot. Really the solution is not more housing in SF but to move tech bro jobs elsewhere more affordable. Like Detroit.
- criley2 8y ago
  "Really the solution is not more housing in SF but to move tech bro jobs elsewhere more affordable. Like Detroit." Funny that you call a realistic, economically sound criticism of NIMBY-ism "propaganda" but then go on to attack the entire problem as "techbros". Wow, talk about intellectual dishonesty. I'm so glad we all learned today that the only problem with SF is "techbros!" That's certainly not "propaganda"! All we have to do fix SF is kick all the techbros out! How convenient for your preferred ideology!
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    Go ahead please do argue against my points about building costs and transportation infrastructure. I'm waiting.
    - chris_mc 8y ago
      Imagine if housing was affordable somewhere other than Stockton. Then maybe people would live in SF and the South Bay (aka: "Silicon Valley") rather than huddling together on the BART and Caltrain. If we had housing closer to our work and commercial areas, people could walk more, too. Instead, folks travel for 1-2 hours each way because they can only afford to live far into the East Bay. I don't know for sure if this would work, but it seems logical that people want to live closer to work, if possible.
dabockster 8y ago
There’s also a lot of corruption in low income housing. Just about a month ago, a housing program in Bellevue, WA came under fire because over 90% of the subsidized renters made $100k or more (some of which worked for the WA state social services).

helen___keller 8y ago

To add to this, it's not just that restricting the housing supply results in a shortage. Also, because there's systematic restrictions on construction, speculating on a continued housing shortage (and hence consistently high housing prices) is a surefire bet if the housing supply never increases. If people somewhere nearby were building a lot of housing, an individual would feel a lot less certain about committing 7 figures of debt to own a dinky 3 bedroom house built last century, because the value is derived entirely from scarcity. On the other hand, going housepoor on a six figure salary seems like a reasonable choice when you see articles like this https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/28/map-shows-it-may-take-centuries-to-reach-housing-goals-in-the-bay-area/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/28/map-shows-it-may-take... and think that you might not have another chance in your lifetime to afford a house in the area.

mywittyname 8y ago
> If people somewhere nearby were building a lot of housing, an individual would feel a lot less certain about committing 7 figures of debt to own a dinky 3 bedroom house built last century, because the value is derived entirely from scarcity. This is absolutely the way people think, but it might actually not be true. The person in question may be able to sell their land for a large multiple of their purchase price, if a developer were able to tear down the structure to build a multi-tenant dwelling. As it currently stands, the maximum economic value that can be derived is based on that of a single family home for the top x% of earners who can afford to buy one. But if you could house ten families on the same land, the economic value probably skyrockets.
- helen___keller 8y ago
  In my particular case I was starting with the assumption that the single family home remains zoned for single family, but elsewhere in the economic region theres a huge building boom relieving the region of housing scarcity. That said, you are absolutely correct. If building large multifamily dwellings were cheaper & always viable, you would see the cost of a single family home increase to reflect the profitability of doing so (until it is not as profitable, at which point single family homes would start decreasing)
conanbatt 8y ago
> speculating on a continued housing shortage (and hence consistently high housing prices) is a surefire bet if the housing supply never increases. Two important concepts about this. The first is that in places like SF, those making the speculation are also the ones that dominate the elections. Figure that SF has a high amount of renters, of the which many are foreigners that can't vote. That shows a skewed and corrupt political system. Second, that such a ploy of decreasing housing shortage is economically inefficient, and thus makes the whole poorer. In an efficient system, the more housing, the more people, the more services and tax income and everybody wins. So how can the home-owners be benefitted more if the pie shrinks than if it grows? Its the tax system that double punishes renters and prizes landlords. SF spends 2,600U$S a month per household. If the city levied its taxes on land instead, it would literally eat up all the rental prices of land, and housing would be worth next to nothing: but because instaed it punishes workers coming into the city with sales taxes, and companies with corporate taxes, landlords actually get a double pay: they get paid by the renters twice.

ascales 8y ago

That isn't the problem everywhere. There are places where the lack of planning or zoning results in less than equitable and ethical development. Building lowest-bidder style "luxury" apartments that just start falling apart after move in day with the developer moving to the next construction project the next week. There's a line between freezing a city as is, and overly aggressive development where the buildings you build are blights in less than a decade.

FiveSquared 8y ago
Then find a middle balance!

Gibbon1 8y ago

I always see this parroted. But there is two facts that come into play that are ignored biy this bit of propaganda. 1. It's not just housing but transportation infrastructure. Of which SF has developed nothing other than the 3rd St light rail and the Central Subway. After that there is _nothing_ in the pipeline. Which means nothing will be built for the next 15-20 years. 2. They are building new multifamily. Cost is about $700-1000 a square foot. Unlike you I had a talk with my insurance agent. Guess what, _rebuilding_ costs between $600-1000 a square foot. Really the solution is not more housing in SF but to move tech bro jobs elsewhere more affordable. Like Detroit.

criley2 8y ago
"Really the solution is not more housing in SF but to move tech bro jobs elsewhere more affordable. Like Detroit." Funny that you call a realistic, economically sound criticism of NIMBY-ism "propaganda" but then go on to attack the entire problem as "techbros". Wow, talk about intellectual dishonesty. I'm so glad we all learned today that the only problem with SF is "techbros!" That's certainly not "propaganda"! All we have to do fix SF is kick all the techbros out! How convenient for your preferred ideology!
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  Go ahead please do argue against my points about building costs and transportation infrastructure. I'm waiting.
  - chris_mc 8y ago
    Imagine if housing was affordable somewhere other than Stockton. Then maybe people would live in SF and the South Bay (aka: "Silicon Valley") rather than huddling together on the BART and Caltrain. If we had housing closer to our work and commercial areas, people could walk more, too. Instead, folks travel for 1-2 hours each way because they can only afford to live far into the East Bay. I don't know for sure if this would work, but it seems logical that people want to live closer to work, if possible.

dabockster 8y ago

There’s also a lot of corruption in low income housing. Just about a month ago, a housing program in Bellevue, WA came under fire because over 90% of the subsidized renters made $100k or more (some of which worked for the WA state social services).