9 ms·

Isn't this what terrible public housing is already? Could it be less terrible or would it always devolve into a housing caste system because middle-/upper-class

Isn't this what terrible public housing is already? Could it be less terrible or would it always devolve into a housing caste system because middle-/upper-classes would never use it? Set-asides for "affordable housing" in new developments are an absolute joke because there are very few units, they often have separate "servant-like" entrances, and may not be treated equally compared to other residents. Also, the root cause isn't housing prices, it's a lack of supply because of NIMBYs, a lack of fast/cheap transportation, developing for maximum traffic/commute times like LA, and a lack of development around walkable/self-contained living areas.

arcticbull 6y ago
The root cause is way too little development relative to demand, orchestrated via zoning regulations. Wikipedia spells this out in detail for San Francisco [1]. > Since the 1960s, San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations. Among other restrictions, San Francisco does not allow buildings over 40 feet tall in most of the city, and has passed laws making it easier for neighbors to block developments. Partly as a result of these codes, from 2007 to 2014, the Bay Area issued building permits for only half the number of needed houses, based on the area's population growth. At the same time, there has been rapid economic growth of the high tech industry in San Francisco and nearby Silicon Valley, which has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs. (Supply << Demand) -> Price goes up. If we're to solve the housing affordability crisis, city councils simply need to drop onerous zoning regulations and permit construction such that supply can meet demand. Anything short of this is just a beat-around-the-bush bandaid that hasn't and won't achieve anything. For instance, rent control. What a regressive concept, with tons of unintended consequences. [edit] for real do you think there'd be a housing shortage or affordability crisis if the entire southern and western 3/4 of San Francisco was allowed to build up from 4 stories to 6? Basically everything other than districts 3 and 6. [2] That'd easily add 50% more housing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage [2] https://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/san-francisco’s-supervisorial-districts https://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/san-francisco’s-superv...
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  > The root cause is way too little development relative to demand, and zoning regulations. Trying to mimic 1960s TV neighborhoods thru single use zoning regs has not served our country well.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - vineyardmike 6y ago
    I’m pretty sure a lot of people enjoy living in those neighborhoods. Surely if no one actually liked living in those neighborhoods it wouldn’t still be the ideal people strive for.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of people in the burbs living an idilic life of winding roads and manicured lawns just the same as the people who enjoy rural, small town, or city life but there’s a huge group of people who are forced via their life circumstances to go to where there’s work and where they can afford.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      This doesn't make any sense, if people like those neighborhoods, why would they pay for housing whose value is based around what its potential rent income would be if zoning was not restricted. The fact that you can (eventually) build a 2 story apartment building on that plot of land is already priced in. If you like it this way then enjoy the needless suffering and economic inefficiency, it can only get worse. Turning one city into an "ugly" 10 million metropolis could have spared a dozen other cities.
      - vineyardmike 6y ago
        To quote what all of them are saying... >Turning one city into an "ugly" 10 million metropolis could have spared a dozen other cities. "Great, turn one city like that and spare the rest... just not in my city.
dredmorbius 6y ago
Public housing as typically formulated in the US (and pardon some very hazy recollections and understanding) has been more an assistance/entitlement system offering only usefruct rights (that is: a roof over one's head), and no equity valuation. The Shane Phillips / Lewis Centre proposal specifically addresses equity rights in addition, which is at the very least rare, if not novel. (There are some co-housing / co-op structures which have some similarities, these are largely smaller scale.)
ffggvv 6y ago
it’s not terrible because the middle upper classes don’t use it. the middle/upper classes don’t use it because it’s terrible because of the people who live in it and do terrible things. sorry it’s not PC but it’s true
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Also because you can't qualify for section 8 housing?
- dsr_ 6y ago
  “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” ― Anatole France
  - ferongr 6y ago
    I see no issue with such law.
MomoXenosaga 6y ago
The housing market is FUBAR because the people who already have a house absolutely 100% need prices to go up indefinitely to fund their lifestyle. The government can't do anything either besides tell banks to lend starters more $ because the system cannot be allowed to collapse.
- haram_masala 6y ago
  Doesn’t this depend on whether those homeowners have borrowed against their (rising) equity? I wonder what fraction of homeowners actually do so. Personally I wouldn’t dream of it, so rising prices don’t really affect my lifestyle at all.
  - chii 6y ago
    A lot of home owners use their equity to invest (typically, in another property).
  - MomoXenosaga 6y ago
    I think a lot of people see their family house as their pension plan. A house is an asset now.
- Spivak 6y ago
  You say “fund their lifestyle” like people’s houses appreciating is paying for their summer home or m5 when in reality it’s funding their ability to move with work and not get their equity eaten by inflation. People need their houses to not deprecate and to roughly increase by value of the work put into the house during their time lived there.
  - stevehawk 6y ago
    i bet there's a lot of people refinancing their homes right now and rolling their car loans and other stupid stuff into the new mortgage by using the equity. i watched a lot of people do that in 2006-2008. hell even i'm considering taking out a loan against my increase in equity from the last two years to buy a plane because interest rates are so low.
bradleyjg 6y ago
> Set-asides for "affordable housing" in new developments are an absolute joke because there are very few units, they often have separate "servant-like" entrances, and may not be treated equally compared to other residents. I’ve lived in 80/20 buildings. None of the things you list make them a “joke” except the number of units. Yes, the 20% apartments aren’t as nice, don’t get to use the gym for free, and in a couple of cases had a separate entrance. So what?!? They were still massively subsidized and had giant lotteries for people that would have loved to get them. No, outrage mongers notwithstanding, the real issue is that the programs are incredibly inefficient. The builders get millions of dollars of tax benefits for each of those lottery units. Why house one lucky family in the most expensive part of town, and give four families nothing, when you could get rid of the program, not waive any taxes, and use the tax money from the luxury building in the fancy part of town to house all five families in a working class part of town? Like so much of contemporary upper-middle class driven leftism it’s about the appearances—-hence the outrage over poor doors—-rather than actually helping people. Privileged people want curated poor neighbors (bonus points if they are “diverse”) as an amenity.
- bombcar 6y ago
  Working-class areas and luxury areas aren’t a problem if there’s effective transportation. As it is most of California is packed to the gills with freeways and little in the way of rail. (Sadly rail is often opposed by the luxury areas - the Santee extension of the Trolley was campaigned against as “importing crime”.)
- gnopgnip 6y ago
  The government already builds "too much" public housing in undesirable areas. For instance the San Francisco Housing Authority has had all waitlists closed for 10+ years. Many other relatively desirable areas are the same. But places like San Joaquin county have units available right now in Manteca. There are many people who have lived their whole lives in places like SF, Oakland, LA, and are illegally displaced, and would rather wait years for permanent housing under the current system. Is it really helping them to force them to move far away?
  - 6y ago
andrepd 6y ago
> Also, the root cause isn't X, it's Y Unfortunately unaffordable housing is a problem with many causes, not one simple root cause that explains everything to the detriment of all other factors.

arcticbull 6y ago

The root cause is way too little development relative to demand, orchestrated via zoning regulations. Wikipedia spells this out in detail for San Francisco [1]. > Since the 1960s, San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations. Among other restrictions, San Francisco does not allow buildings over 40 feet tall in most of the city, and has passed laws making it easier for neighbors to block developments. Partly as a result of these codes, from 2007 to 2014, the Bay Area issued building permits for only half the number of needed houses, based on the area's population growth. At the same time, there has been rapid economic growth of the high tech industry in San Francisco and nearby Silicon Valley, which has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs. (Supply << Demand) -> Price goes up. If we're to solve the housing affordability crisis, city councils simply need to drop onerous zoning regulations and permit construction such that supply can meet demand. Anything short of this is just a beat-around-the-bush bandaid that hasn't and won't achieve anything. For instance, rent control. What a regressive concept, with tons of unintended consequences. [edit] for real do you think there'd be a housing shortage or affordability crisis if the entire southern and western 3/4 of San Francisco was allowed to build up from 4 stories to 6? Basically everything other than districts 3 and 6. [2] That'd easily add 50% more housing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage [2] https://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/san-francisco’s-supervisorial-districts https://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/san-francisco’s-superv...

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
> The root cause is way too little development relative to demand, and zoning regulations. Trying to mimic 1960s TV neighborhoods thru single use zoning regs has not served our country well.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- vineyardmike 6y ago
  I’m pretty sure a lot of people enjoy living in those neighborhoods. Surely if no one actually liked living in those neighborhoods it wouldn’t still be the ideal people strive for.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of people in the burbs living an idilic life of winding roads and manicured lawns just the same as the people who enjoy rural, small town, or city life but there’s a huge group of people who are forced via their life circumstances to go to where there’s work and where they can afford.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    This doesn't make any sense, if people like those neighborhoods, why would they pay for housing whose value is based around what its potential rent income would be if zoning was not restricted. The fact that you can (eventually) build a 2 story apartment building on that plot of land is already priced in. If you like it this way then enjoy the needless suffering and economic inefficiency, it can only get worse. Turning one city into an "ugly" 10 million metropolis could have spared a dozen other cities.
    - vineyardmike 6y ago
      To quote what all of them are saying... >Turning one city into an "ugly" 10 million metropolis could have spared a dozen other cities. "Great, turn one city like that and spare the rest... just not in my city.

dredmorbius 6y ago

Public housing as typically formulated in the US (and pardon some very hazy recollections and understanding) has been more an assistance/entitlement system offering only usefruct rights (that is: a roof over one's head), and no equity valuation. The Shane Phillips / Lewis Centre proposal specifically addresses equity rights in addition, which is at the very least rare, if not novel. (There are some co-housing / co-op structures which have some similarities, these are largely smaller scale.)

ffggvv 6y ago

it’s not terrible because the middle upper classes don’t use it. the middle/upper classes don’t use it because it’s terrible because of the people who live in it and do terrible things. sorry it’s not PC but it’s true

whimsicalism 6y ago
Also because you can't qualify for section 8 housing?
dsr_ 6y ago
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” ― Anatole France
- ferongr 6y ago
  I see no issue with such law.

MomoXenosaga 6y ago

The housing market is FUBAR because the people who already have a house absolutely 100% need prices to go up indefinitely to fund their lifestyle. The government can't do anything either besides tell banks to lend starters more $ because the system cannot be allowed to collapse.

haram_masala 6y ago
Doesn’t this depend on whether those homeowners have borrowed against their (rising) equity? I wonder what fraction of homeowners actually do so. Personally I wouldn’t dream of it, so rising prices don’t really affect my lifestyle at all.
- chii 6y ago
  A lot of home owners use their equity to invest (typically, in another property).
- MomoXenosaga 6y ago
  I think a lot of people see their family house as their pension plan. A house is an asset now.
Spivak 6y ago
You say “fund their lifestyle” like people’s houses appreciating is paying for their summer home or m5 when in reality it’s funding their ability to move with work and not get their equity eaten by inflation. People need their houses to not deprecate and to roughly increase by value of the work put into the house during their time lived there.
- stevehawk 6y ago
  i bet there's a lot of people refinancing their homes right now and rolling their car loans and other stupid stuff into the new mortgage by using the equity. i watched a lot of people do that in 2006-2008. hell even i'm considering taking out a loan against my increase in equity from the last two years to buy a plane because interest rates are so low.

bradleyjg 6y ago

> Set-asides for "affordable housing" in new developments are an absolute joke because there are very few units, they often have separate "servant-like" entrances, and may not be treated equally compared to other residents. I’ve lived in 80/20 buildings. None of the things you list make them a “joke” except the number of units. Yes, the 20% apartments aren’t as nice, don’t get to use the gym for free, and in a couple of cases had a separate entrance. So what?!? They were still massively subsidized and had giant lotteries for people that would have loved to get them. No, outrage mongers notwithstanding, the real issue is that the programs are incredibly inefficient. The builders get millions of dollars of tax benefits for each of those lottery units. Why house one lucky family in the most expensive part of town, and give four families nothing, when you could get rid of the program, not waive any taxes, and use the tax money from the luxury building in the fancy part of town to house all five families in a working class part of town? Like so much of contemporary upper-middle class driven leftism it’s about the appearances—-hence the outrage over poor doors—-rather than actually helping people. Privileged people want curated poor neighbors (bonus points if they are “diverse”) as an amenity.

bombcar 6y ago
Working-class areas and luxury areas aren’t a problem if there’s effective transportation. As it is most of California is packed to the gills with freeways and little in the way of rail. (Sadly rail is often opposed by the luxury areas - the Santee extension of the Trolley was campaigned against as “importing crime”.)
gnopgnip 6y ago
The government already builds "too much" public housing in undesirable areas. For instance the San Francisco Housing Authority has had all waitlists closed for 10+ years. Many other relatively desirable areas are the same. But places like San Joaquin county have units available right now in Manteca. There are many people who have lived their whole lives in places like SF, Oakland, LA, and are illegally displaced, and would rather wait years for permanent housing under the current system. Is it really helping them to force them to move far away?
- 6y ago

andrepd 6y ago

> Also, the root cause isn't X, it's Y Unfortunately unaffordable housing is a problem with many causes, not one simple root cause that explains everything to the detriment of all other factors.