8 ms·
> But it could also be that crisis has gotten so out of control, it can no longer be solved at the local level. We can't do anything. We're helpless! Please ra
by Kalium 7y ago
> But it could also be that crisis has gotten so out of control, it can no longer be solved at the local level.
We can't do anything. We're helpless! Please rain money on us from DC to spare us having to reform our zoning and permitting processes!
All of the policies that drove this mess are local. Which means solving the mess can also be done locally.
We're not helpless. We just cosplay as helpless because it means we can avoid discussing the hard changes to popular policies that might be needed. I am so, so sick of seeing this canard given serious credibility.
- BurningFrog 7y ago> All of the policies that drove this mess are local. Which means solving the mess can also be done locally. Right. But what's a "housing crisis" for society at large is a huge money source for local home owners, who are the demographic setting the local policies. Don't expect them to vote away their source of riches.
- dev_dull 7y ago> huge money source for local home owners, who are the demographic setting the local policies. And why do you think this? A home is one of the least liquid assets one can own. It’s not a huge money source. It’s not even a money source home owners at all.
- hfern 7y agoBecause a housing crisis leads to skyrocketing home values. They benefit from increased housing prices. Further, any countering increase in property taxes is dampened by Prop 13. So there is very little reason to sell and cash-in vs just holding on for longer as the problem worsens. When you are a homeowner with an expensive house, you don't want more homes built. That will increase supply and lower price.
- sjg007 7y agoYou actually do want more homes built because that will attract more services and the cost of living will go down.
- pwinnski 7y agoConvince California homeowners of that. Good luck!
- hasbot 7y agoThat's not true. More homes require more/better infrastructure (e.g. water, sewage, roadways). Infrastructure improvements cost massive amounts of money meaning tax increases.
- sjg007 7y agoMore customers means more businesses, a wider tax base.
- llampx 7y agoHow does having more services result in lower col?
- ryan93 7y agoObviously people would rather have a home worth 2 million than 1 million even if its illiquid
- Kalium 7y agoIt's a very valuable source of equity one can borrow against, especially if it is taxed at a value far below its actual market value.
- mywittyname 7y ago> It's a very valuable source of equity one can borrow against ...At insanely favorable rates. A person in SF could build quite the nest egg by doing a cash-out refi every year and investing the proceeds.
- luckydata 7y agoYou don't exactly day trade houses but it's not that difficult to sell one, otherwise we wouldn't have so many real estate agents. It's a HUGE money source in two ways: who got to a heavily gentrified area first and bought a cheap house, reaped the benefits of good jobs and increasing values for years, especially with how California sets real estate taxes. After 20-30 years of tax-free appreciation they can sell their once 500k house for 2.5M and move to a lower cost of living area. IF you're from around here and didn't notice this pattern then you need to be paying a little more attention.
- authoritarian 7y agoAnecdotally, since I purchased my house in the summer of 2016 in the PNW, it has appreciated nearly 50%. That's a 6 figure increase just because of the area I live in, and I've done virtually nothing to the home
- ninth_ant 7y agoIncreasing density improves the value of the land tremendously. Opposition to density is about protecting a specific lifestyle, not money.
- shuckles 7y agoI don't think people believe that, even if it might be true. I've long thought a "density will make your land more valuable" advertising campaign would be interesting education which might sway some avaricious minds.
- TrainedMonkey 7y agoIt could also be greedy local optimization, if everyone around you sells out your house is worth more. So you do want high rises everywhere except your own little neighborhood.
- notatoad 7y agoit increases the value of the land that is being densified. It does not increase the value of the surrounding existing low-density housing that is currently being held at a ridiculously high value because of the artificial scarcity that zoning laws have created. And it definitely doesn't make rents go down, which if you're a landowner in the bay area is a huge source of revenue.
- ohazi 7y ago> It does not increase the value of the surrounding existing low-density housing Yes it does. If I live in suburbia surrounded by suburbia, my house is worth X, because it's a house in a quiet area. I have to drive to SF to have fun, which sucks because it's far, traffic sucks, and parking sucks. If I live in suburbia but am surrounded by islands of new mixed-use buildings (housing on top, retail on the bottom), then my house is worth X + Y, because a) it's still a house in a quiet area, but b) it's now also close to walkable outdoor spaces with chic shops and restaurants, at least one of which is likely to become a popular upscale haunt. I now have the luxury of being able to quickly drive there in my car to hang out, and then quickly go back home to my (large, quiet) house when I'm done. I get convenient use of the new space, without the inconvenience of living in an overpriced shoebox above a nightclub. It's literally having your cake and eating it too.
- slashink 7y agoI can’t comment on your opinion here because I don’t know enough, but I wanted to highlight how interesting the use of the word “cosplay” is. I understand exactly what you mean when you use the word cosplay, however, it also strikes me that this word wouldn’t be used in the same way 10 years ago as it is today. Just an observation.
- pg_is_a_butt 7y ago> All of the policies that drove this mess are local. Which means solving the mess can also be done locally. I remember when city council voted to make every day 70 degrees and sunny.
- freewilly1040 7y agoThe local incentives do not favor building more housing. The alternative is not federal subsidies but statewide policies that mandate higher density zoning.
- colechristensen 7y agoPeople need to leave. There is a supply and demand problem where there is an enormous demand for a small area when there are so many other great places to be in this country. Jobs are abundant all over. If you want to solve the housing problems in the bay area, start programs that give people $10,000 to go anywhere else. You'll enormously increase the quality of life of the people who leave. There's nothing wrong with an area that doesn't aspire to intense density. Nobody is entitled to that, there's nothing wrong with self determination and choosing not to grow. People need to realize there are other places to be, companies need to realize there are other places to be.
- shuckles 7y agoWhy would you subsidize people to leave if the market for labor suggests that for high income households, living in Bay Area is still totally worth it?
- colechristensen 7y agoYou have to be pretty far up in order to meet that bar, not many do. People (including myself) overvalue the dollar amount and undervalue the various increased costs. If I had never come to the bay area, I would be earning half as much, but I would be saving more, I would be living in better housing in a better neighborhood, and I would have less pressure. By all metrics but a W-2 I would be wealthier. At some point it's entirely possible that I will reach that threshold where the bay area income will blow everything else out of the water, but that's a gamble and ultimately probably not "worth it" when I consider what I want in life.
- shuckles 7y agoIt is unfortunate that regionally self-imposed policies have put you into this situation. I still don’t understand why that justifies a further subsidy. Are you saying the extra 10 grand would help people overcome a mental hurdle which has trapped them in a bad situation?
- sjg007 7y agoThe State needs to get involved to force the issue and pass SB50 and override the local county and city governments. Feds could also dangle some money as incentive.
- davidw 7y ago> All of the policies that drove this mess are local. Which means solving the mess can also be done locally. Could be, but at this point it makes more sense to pass statewide legislation, like SB50, which California failed to pass, or Oregon's successful HB 2001.
- sieabahlpark 7y agoIt's not just zoning laws it's the building code that essentially makes it impossible to build anything affordable.
- vkou 7y ago> All of the policies that drove this mess are local. Which means solving the mess can also be done locally. These policies are the natural consequence of normal people having 90% of their wealth tied up in their home. (And, because of low interest rates, and 25 year mortgages, being leveraged up to their neck. If there was a cap on mortgage lengths, we'd all have been better off... But it's too late, now.) It's political suicide at this point to do anything that could possibly result in housing prices dropping. Short of a bloody communist revolution, I am not seeing any way out of this problem.
- bradgessler 7y agoWon’t the net effect of this be an increase in housing prices, making housing prices even more inaccessible? Anytime I see affordable housing programs that don’t increase the supply of housing, but inject more dollars into the market, it makes the problem worse.
- traderjane 7y agoDoes some of the harder change mean having a harder idea of how population growth should work? Perhaps discussion of informal logistical caps?