6 ms·

Because there are limited resources surrounding those homes. Like streets, schools, sewage, etc. You can’t just magically scale up the housing without also scal

Because there are limited resources surrounding those homes. Like streets, schools, sewage, etc. You can’t just magically scale up the housing without also scaling up infrastructure.

mcny 5y ago
My understanding is that they put a cap on property taxes that fund the infrastructure and then turned around and said there is no money for infrastructure.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  Isn’t it a chicken and egg problem? The only way to fund the new infrastructure to accommodate growth that will bring in property taxes to fund it in the future is via debt or impact fees. Either can be difficult for local governments to do. Also voters are often given lots of say, people who don’t want density get entrenched and vote for local leaders who are like minded.
- mateo411 5y ago
  Sort of. Property taxes can only increase at ~2 percent a year due to Prop 13. However, people are still buying and selling houses. The people who have recently purchased a house pay high property taxes, because the property is expensive.
xxpor 5y ago
Good thing the government tracks the capacity of those things. There's no need to ask random people with no expertise what they think.
heyda 5y ago
I think you're thinking about the problem in the reverse order, it costs money per foot to lay down a street, sewage lines, internet, electricity, gas ect. If there are more units per square foot it makes more economical sense for everything. It's the reason rural regions still use septic tanks and DSL internet, it's expensive to lay it down. Think of it this way, if it costs 10k/year for a quarter acre lot to have access to a city municipality and to pay for the road maintenance but you double the units of housing on the lot, all of a sudden it costs 5k/year per unit on the quarter acre lot (plus a little bit for a second hookup.) This means not only do you have more units of total housing but a more economical infrastructure.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Money per foot is one thing. But the actual total infrastructure on that street has to be up to snuff before you build, while money can be taxed later.
  - nostrademons 5y ago
    I think the reasoning behind this is "create a problem, solve a problem". If you never create the problem there's no incentive to solve it. You have other problems instead, like homelessness and crime. In mathematical terms, you're stuck in a local maxima, and to get to a higher global maxima you need to descend the gradient a little bit and put up with some short-term pain.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      It's supposed to work with the promoter applying for a permit, and if it makes sense either it's granted or the infra is built. Failing infrastructure can have disastrous impacts. It's not somewhere where you can afford to move fast and break stuff. There is no alternative to competent government here, no easy way out.
      - heyda 5y ago
        It's not really possible to move quick and break things, there are only so many home builders, carpenters, electricians, plumbers ect. I agree that failing infrastructure can absolutely have disastrous impacts but city councils in America are not run by the most competent people with decent foresight from what I have seen, they see that a bus route runs 95% capacity every morning at 9am, do nothing, a few months later, it's 105%, people start complaining, then they add another bus during that period and repeat the cycle. The only time I have seen infrastructure be built in advance of new housing is when a construction builds the infrastructure along with a new suburban housing development, which is great for the first 30 years, the taxes on those new houses only needs to be like 3k/year for police/fire/ect because everything is new, except after 30 years then the roads need to be repaved, sewers redone, ect, a 10k+/yr bill starts hitting and the local government is all confused about how to pay for it with the 3k/yr they are collecting, rinse, repeat. Local governments just aren't good at predicting usages until they happen.
aluminum96 5y ago
This is why the next step should be reforming prop 13. If we charge fair property tax to homeowners, based on the actual present value, municipalities will be able to afford the infrastructure improvements.
- zepto 5y ago
  It’s not fair for poor people to be driven out of their houses when rich people choose to enter the neighborhood. That is the very essence of gentrification. If you want to destroy more communities of color in the Bay Area, this is how to do it.
  - aluminum96 5y ago
    If you want to protect poor homeowners, that's a noble goal, but it should be achieved with a narrowly tailored policy. Thousands of rich homeowners in Palo Alto are paying less than 10k per year on multi-million dollar properties because of Prop 13, and that's both unfair and unsustainable. Not to mention the corporate properties: Disney World, for example, pays an indefensibly low tax rate. The negative side effects of Prop 13 far, far outweigh any benefit to poor people (most of whom are renters priced out due in part to Prop 13!).
    - zepto 5y ago
      Renters are just as impacted by prop 13 as buyers, since landlords pass on the costs.
      - 0xB31B1B 5y ago
        That’s now how pricing happens at all. Rent is not based on “cost plus” pricing it is based on supply and demand
    - Schnitz 5y ago
      There’s an obvious and easy first step: End Prop 13 for anything that isn’t an owner occupied home. Business/capital interests won’t allow that though.
BurningFrog 5y ago
All those things can routinely be built, without magic, as needed.
r00fus 5y ago
Rishi Kumar brings up these points in a local article [1]. It's a good question: "These bills will not require developers to invest in infrastructure improvement, rather only provide bare-minimum parking, avoiding costly entitlements. How will the current infrastructure — water, sewer, gas, roads — support the increased population? Who will make the necessary infrastructure investment?" [1] https://padailypost.com/2021/03/19/guest-opinion-sb9-sb10-the-kiss-of-death-for-neighborhoods/ https://padailypost.com/2021/03/19/guest-opinion-sb9-sb10-th...

Because there are limited resources surrounding those homes. Like streets, schools, sewage, etc. You can’t just magically scale up the housing without also scaling up infrastructure.

mcny 5y ago

My understanding is that they put a cap on property taxes that fund the infrastructure and then turned around and said there is no money for infrastructure.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Isn’t it a chicken and egg problem? The only way to fund the new infrastructure to accommodate growth that will bring in property taxes to fund it in the future is via debt or impact fees. Either can be difficult for local governments to do. Also voters are often given lots of say, people who don’t want density get entrenched and vote for local leaders who are like minded.
mateo411 5y ago
Sort of. Property taxes can only increase at ~2 percent a year due to Prop 13. However, people are still buying and selling houses. The people who have recently purchased a house pay high property taxes, because the property is expensive.

xxpor 5y ago

Good thing the government tracks the capacity of those things. There's no need to ask random people with no expertise what they think.

heyda 5y ago

I think you're thinking about the problem in the reverse order, it costs money per foot to lay down a street, sewage lines, internet, electricity, gas ect. If there are more units per square foot it makes more economical sense for everything. It's the reason rural regions still use septic tanks and DSL internet, it's expensive to lay it down. Think of it this way, if it costs 10k/year for a quarter acre lot to have access to a city municipality and to pay for the road maintenance but you double the units of housing on the lot, all of a sudden it costs 5k/year per unit on the quarter acre lot (plus a little bit for a second hookup.) This means not only do you have more units of total housing but a more economical infrastructure.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Money per foot is one thing. But the actual total infrastructure on that street has to be up to snuff before you build, while money can be taxed later.
- nostrademons 5y ago
  I think the reasoning behind this is "create a problem, solve a problem". If you never create the problem there's no incentive to solve it. You have other problems instead, like homelessness and crime. In mathematical terms, you're stuck in a local maxima, and to get to a higher global maxima you need to descend the gradient a little bit and put up with some short-term pain.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    It's supposed to work with the promoter applying for a permit, and if it makes sense either it's granted or the infra is built. Failing infrastructure can have disastrous impacts. It's not somewhere where you can afford to move fast and break stuff. There is no alternative to competent government here, no easy way out.
    - heyda 5y ago
      It's not really possible to move quick and break things, there are only so many home builders, carpenters, electricians, plumbers ect. I agree that failing infrastructure can absolutely have disastrous impacts but city councils in America are not run by the most competent people with decent foresight from what I have seen, they see that a bus route runs 95% capacity every morning at 9am, do nothing, a few months later, it's 105%, people start complaining, then they add another bus during that period and repeat the cycle. The only time I have seen infrastructure be built in advance of new housing is when a construction builds the infrastructure along with a new suburban housing development, which is great for the first 30 years, the taxes on those new houses only needs to be like 3k/year for police/fire/ect because everything is new, except after 30 years then the roads need to be repaved, sewers redone, ect, a 10k+/yr bill starts hitting and the local government is all confused about how to pay for it with the 3k/yr they are collecting, rinse, repeat. Local governments just aren't good at predicting usages until they happen.

aluminum96 5y ago

This is why the next step should be reforming prop 13. If we charge fair property tax to homeowners, based on the actual present value, municipalities will be able to afford the infrastructure improvements.

zepto 5y ago
It’s not fair for poor people to be driven out of their houses when rich people choose to enter the neighborhood. That is the very essence of gentrification. If you want to destroy more communities of color in the Bay Area, this is how to do it.
- aluminum96 5y ago
  If you want to protect poor homeowners, that's a noble goal, but it should be achieved with a narrowly tailored policy. Thousands of rich homeowners in Palo Alto are paying less than 10k per year on multi-million dollar properties because of Prop 13, and that's both unfair and unsustainable. Not to mention the corporate properties: Disney World, for example, pays an indefensibly low tax rate. The negative side effects of Prop 13 far, far outweigh any benefit to poor people (most of whom are renters priced out due in part to Prop 13!).
  - zepto 5y ago
    Renters are just as impacted by prop 13 as buyers, since landlords pass on the costs.
    - 0xB31B1B 5y ago
      That’s now how pricing happens at all. Rent is not based on “cost plus” pricing it is based on supply and demand
  - Schnitz 5y ago
    There’s an obvious and easy first step: End Prop 13 for anything that isn’t an owner occupied home. Business/capital interests won’t allow that though.

BurningFrog 5y ago

All those things can routinely be built, without magic, as needed.

r00fus 5y ago

Rishi Kumar brings up these points in a local article [1]. It's a good question: "These bills will not require developers to invest in infrastructure improvement, rather only provide bare-minimum parking, avoiding costly entitlements. How will the current infrastructure — water, sewer, gas, roads — support the increased population? Who will make the necessary infrastructure investment?" [1] https://padailypost.com/2021/03/19/guest-opinion-sb9-sb10-the-kiss-of-death-for-neighborhoods/ https://padailypost.com/2021/03/19/guest-opinion-sb9-sb10-th...