6 ms·

It's much likelier that they are responding to the voters that have the time and money to make their reelection difficult.

baddox 7y ago
Okay, change "state senators are probably making quite a bit of money off this housing shortage" to "state senators are probably being awarded with a lot of power by supporting this housing shortage." Decision-making on the basis of wanting to be powerful is certainly not better than decision-making on the basis of wanting to be wealthy.
- potatoz2 7y ago
  It's very different though, because in the former case the assumption is that direct financial benefit is blocking all chance of change. In the second you realize that organizing by different interest groups (renters for example) can easily change the calculus. Senators who are landlords will gladly vote against their financial interests to stay in office, by and large (or be replaced by senators who are will to do so).
eli_gottlieb 7y ago
Who are also making large sums of money off the housing crisis. I really don't think the State Senators are likely to consist overwhelmingly of renters, anyway: if their property value is appreciating, they're benefiting.
0xB31B1B 7y ago
I think all 40 senators in CA own a home in CA and something like 65% own at least one unit they rent out. This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords. Not only do the people have the power to vote out legislators, in California they also have the power to bypass them and legislate directly. But, while there is broad consensus that housing is a problem, there isn't broad consensus on solutions among the public any more than there is among legislators.
  - koboll 7y ago
    Homeowners are disproportionately likely to vote, so their constituents no doubt agree with them on this issue. The real problem is that when you incentivize and subsidize putting your net worth into a single large investment vehicle, and then let holders of that investment decide how much competition to it will be allowed nearby, it creates a vicious cycle of ever-increasing supply shortage. Eventually, of course, this will reverse. When the boomers die, renters will be the ones voting. But not before an entire generation has their net worth leeched by a geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing supply hoarders.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > When the boomers die, renters will be the ones voting. When the Boomers die, their GenX and Millenial offspring will inherit their homes, oftentimes, in California, without a full-value tax assessment. And, as the relationships between wealth and voting propensity and wealth and homeownersip are both unlikely to switch directions, homeowners will still be overrepresented in the electorate, and there'll be a new generation of the geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing-supply hoarders, and a new generation complaining about them.
    - kofejnik 7y ago
      > geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing supply hoarders. why so salty?
    - generalpass 7y ago
      If I understand it correctly, when people die the state and IRS collect taxes from the estate based on the value. Since most people these days die in debt, it's most likely the property will have to be sold to cover the taxes owed by the estate. This would mean the inheritance in many cases will be the cash left over from the property sale.
  - newguy1234 7y ago
    One solution I almost never hear talked about is on the employment side. How about if employers are encouraged to not crowd into dense cities? I've seen some employers offer "remote working" as an option. Quite literally, there is a remote office opened up so the employee doesn't have to either commute into work or they can relocate to a place with affordable housing. I've seen it where a bay area company opened up a remote office in Modesto, CA and over a dozen employees completely relocated out of the bay area entirely. It was mostly older employees that were fed up with all the issues in the bay area. Some even went on to say that the remote office was the best decision the company ever made.
zapita 7y ago
Probably a combination of both.

baddox 7y ago

Okay, change "state senators are probably making quite a bit of money off this housing shortage" to "state senators are probably being awarded with a lot of power by supporting this housing shortage." Decision-making on the basis of wanting to be powerful is certainly not better than decision-making on the basis of wanting to be wealthy.

potatoz2 7y ago
It's very different though, because in the former case the assumption is that direct financial benefit is blocking all chance of change. In the second you realize that organizing by different interest groups (renters for example) can easily change the calculus. Senators who are landlords will gladly vote against their financial interests to stay in office, by and large (or be replaced by senators who are will to do so).

eli_gottlieb 7y ago

Who are also making large sums of money off the housing crisis. I really don't think the State Senators are likely to consist overwhelmingly of renters, anyway: if their property value is appreciating, they're benefiting.

0xB31B1B 7y ago

I think all 40 senators in CA own a home in CA and something like 65% own at least one unit they rent out. This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords. Not only do the people have the power to vote out legislators, in California they also have the power to bypass them and legislate directly. But, while there is broad consensus that housing is a problem, there isn't broad consensus on solutions among the public any more than there is among legislators.
- koboll 7y ago
  Homeowners are disproportionately likely to vote, so their constituents no doubt agree with them on this issue. The real problem is that when you incentivize and subsidize putting your net worth into a single large investment vehicle, and then let holders of that investment decide how much competition to it will be allowed nearby, it creates a vicious cycle of ever-increasing supply shortage. Eventually, of course, this will reverse. When the boomers die, renters will be the ones voting. But not before an entire generation has their net worth leeched by a geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing supply hoarders.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > When the boomers die, renters will be the ones voting. When the Boomers die, their GenX and Millenial offspring will inherit their homes, oftentimes, in California, without a full-value tax assessment. And, as the relationships between wealth and voting propensity and wealth and homeownersip are both unlikely to switch directions, homeowners will still be overrepresented in the electorate, and there'll be a new generation of the geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing-supply hoarders, and a new generation complaining about them.
  - kofejnik 7y ago
    > geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing supply hoarders. why so salty?
  - generalpass 7y ago
    If I understand it correctly, when people die the state and IRS collect taxes from the estate based on the value. Since most people these days die in debt, it's most likely the property will have to be sold to cover the taxes owed by the estate. This would mean the inheritance in many cases will be the cash left over from the property sale.
- newguy1234 7y ago
  One solution I almost never hear talked about is on the employment side. How about if employers are encouraged to not crowd into dense cities? I've seen some employers offer "remote working" as an option. Quite literally, there is a remote office opened up so the employee doesn't have to either commute into work or they can relocate to a place with affordable housing. I've seen it where a bay area company opened up a remote office in Modesto, CA and over a dozen employees completely relocated out of the bay area entirely. It was mostly older employees that were fed up with all the issues in the bay area. Some even went on to say that the remote office was the best decision the company ever made.

zapita 7y ago

Probably a combination of both.