4 ms·

I think removing many of these housing discounts would only partially impact housing costs, since these affect the majority of buyers and most home purchasing d

I think removing many of these housing discounts would only partially impact housing costs, since these affect the majority of buyers and most home purchasing decisions are made on the basis of the monthly payment. That is, after removing some of these policies, people would probably still end up paying the same monthly payment, just with lower nominal housing costs. The bigger issue to me is the constriction of supply. The suburban development pattern in many areas is simply unable to support the densities needed to manage regional issues well, causing traffic issues and forcing people to live very far from their places of work. I also have more unpopular opinions that there is too much "protected" land in areas like the bay area (specifically in the North Bay). Regardless of that, California needs to do better to fix the supply problem, because these housing policy failures are slowly beginning to affect more and more areas outside of just the bay area and SoCal, and the measures passed so far just don't cut it. Also, prop 13 has essentially removed much of the "carrying costs" which penalize undeveloped land usage (prop 13 isn't the only thing here, IIRC there are also lots of state/federal tax deductions you can get from not using land, oddly enough). And the low property tax rates across the board really penalize young high earners since the low taxes are made up for with income/sales taxes.

dcolkitt 6y ago
I think both you and OP have a point. The way it ties together is that "owner-occupied housing as a retirement plan" creates the political demand for NIMBY supply restrictions. When people have 500% of their net worth tied up in a single piece of property, that created very strong incentives to lobby for policies that prop up the value of that asset. You take away the tax incentives, and the mortgage subsidies. People probably still wind up with similar monthly payments. But now as a percentage of their wealth, housing becomes much less important. A 10% decline in home prices no longer leads to a global financial crisis. That makes it a lot easier to build a political coalition to increase housing supply.
mint2 6y ago
I take issue with the “too much protected land” stance. The protected land is a treasure. And paving it over with suburbs will not fix housing. See LA. Vast sprawl and still sky high housing. Oh it’s a wee bit better prices? Let’s pave everything. Turning the Bay Area into la or Phoenix sounds like an awful idea. Densifying I can get behind, turning the protected lands into a concrete wasteland of parking lots and hoa developments of boxes and mandated office parkish landscaping is not something to advocate. Is that really the best we can do?
- spothedog1 6y ago
  They're not talking about protected nature preserves and national parks, they're talking about protected single family zoning which prohibits density increases.
  - opportune 6y ago
    I'm talking about both, but separately. For example Marin County has a lot of natural areas where development is verboten but it's also a big part of the appeal of the area (well, the fact that it's a wealthy white suburban area is a lot of the appeal too, and NIMBY policies keep housing expensive so it stays that way). I just wanted to bring it up because I feel it's yet another piece of the puzzle behind housing costs in the area - but I'm aware it's even more a contentious subject than zoning so it's not a hill I would die on. The biggest problem, by far, is single family zoning though.

dcolkitt 6y ago

I think both you and OP have a point. The way it ties together is that "owner-occupied housing as a retirement plan" creates the political demand for NIMBY supply restrictions. When people have 500% of their net worth tied up in a single piece of property, that created very strong incentives to lobby for policies that prop up the value of that asset. You take away the tax incentives, and the mortgage subsidies. People probably still wind up with similar monthly payments. But now as a percentage of their wealth, housing becomes much less important. A 10% decline in home prices no longer leads to a global financial crisis. That makes it a lot easier to build a political coalition to increase housing supply.

mint2 6y ago

I take issue with the “too much protected land” stance. The protected land is a treasure. And paving it over with suburbs will not fix housing. See LA. Vast sprawl and still sky high housing. Oh it’s a wee bit better prices? Let’s pave everything. Turning the Bay Area into la or Phoenix sounds like an awful idea. Densifying I can get behind, turning the protected lands into a concrete wasteland of parking lots and hoa developments of boxes and mandated office parkish landscaping is not something to advocate. Is that really the best we can do?

spothedog1 6y ago
They're not talking about protected nature preserves and national parks, they're talking about protected single family zoning which prohibits density increases.
- opportune 6y ago
  I'm talking about both, but separately. For example Marin County has a lot of natural areas where development is verboten but it's also a big part of the appeal of the area (well, the fact that it's a wealthy white suburban area is a lot of the appeal too, and NIMBY policies keep housing expensive so it stays that way). I just wanted to bring it up because I feel it's yet another piece of the puzzle behind housing costs in the area - but I'm aware it's even more a contentious subject than zoning so it's not a hill I would die on. The biggest problem, by far, is single family zoning though.