9 ms·

Yes, people here celebrating this don't understand at all that all this does is give developers more power over communities they have no interest in but money.

Yes, people here celebrating this don't understand at all that all this does is give developers more power over communities they have no interest in but money. And of course, the politicians that they will fund/bribe to make this happen. We just went from democracy to oligarchy in this case.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
No, what this does is give developers the power to bring affordable housing to california. Them making money is just the incentive to do it. Silicon valley was already an oligarchy since housing affordability ensures only the wealthy can afford to vote in local elections.
matchbok 4y ago
They are building housing for people and are risking millions. How dare they make some money! How rude of them. Hint: Developers don't have power over communities, rich homeowners do.
mullingitover 4y ago
So much of the problems with housing in the state stem from the fact that lots of community members are valuing their investment in their own house over everything else. Housing can either be affordable or it can be a good investment, it really can't be both. At this point the market has been so perverted by entrenched interests blocking new development that I would be okay with a dictatorship of developers for a solid decade. It might be enough to dig us out of the hole we're in.
- scop 4y ago
  This is a point I don't often see discussed. I have friends and family in CA whose primary asset is their home, with little to nothing invested elsewhere (perhaps because of the high cost of living)...resulting in a mortgage they have no intention of ever paying off, little retirement savings, and fingers crossed for a cash-out down the line.
  - nickspag 4y ago
    That's not all of it, either. Older buyers have gotten the lionshare of their wealth from housing appreciation by preventing new housing and pay a lower tax burden than new buyers due to Prop 13. There's a reason that when it made it to the supreme court Justice Stevens called it medeival and referred to entrenched owners as Squires. "During the two past decades, California property owners have enjoyed extraordinary prosperity. As the State's population has mushroomed, so has the value of its real estate. Between 1976 and 1986 alone, the total assessed value of California property subject to property taxation increased tenfold. Simply put, those who invested in California real estate in the 1970s are among the most fortunate capitalists in the world.Proposition 13 has provided these successful investors with a tremendous windfall and, in doing so, has created severe inequities in California's property tax scheme. These property owners (hereinafter "the Squires) are guaranteed that, so long as they retain their property and do not improve it, their taxes will not increase more than 2% in any given year. As a direct result of this windfall for the Squires, later purchasers must pay far more than their fair share of property taxes." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html
    - mullingitover 4y ago
      > and do not improve it This might be one of the craziest parts of it, and it makes me understand how a lot of neighborhoods in California just look sort of...dumpy. The system actively discourages you from improving a property! My dream is to see the state property tax code flipped to land value tax. No penalties for improving the property, just purely tax the value of the land and penalize people who park their vacant lots for year after year.
    - la64710 4y ago
      Yet you can hardly get a house sitting in the market even if it is more than a million dollars. Obviously the demand is very high.
  - sa1 4y ago
    With this one-time change in zoning, they can cash out by converting their single family home to multi-family housing.
rcpt 4y ago
Home owners, not developers, get all the profits in real estate. https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2021/03/16/who-benefits-from-the-housing-market-graph-of-the-week/ https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2021/03/16/who-benefits-f...
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Collectively, perhaps, but the developer who built my house has by far the biggest house in the area, on the nicest property, with the nicest cars, and Facebook albums filled to the brim with pictures of him meeting famous people I'll not ever get to schmooze with. I think his profit margin must be okay.
opportune 4y ago
Where does this narrative about evil greedy developers come from? If the new housing represents a net increase in people, then the developers are filling unmet demand. It’s not that different from restricting the supply of milk and getting angry that milk producers will make more money when those restrictions are lifted. Yeah, they will, but only because there is more demand for their product than they were previously legally allowed to satisfy. Developer margins should actually decrease when zoning is more permissive anyway. Right now in SF there is a whole cottage industry of “facilitators” and direct graft/corruption making it hard to build housing unless you know how to work the system. While it’s absolutely true that developers can cut corners, I personally don’t see them as any more evil than any other business.
- TedShiller 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    The fact that housing prices are high isn't a sign of greed: it's a sign of a constrained supply. Developers build housing, the price is set by what people are willing to pay.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - burntwater 4y ago
      The price is also set by developers. There's no reason for rent to increase 30-50% in a single year other than literal greed. Will people pay it? Yes, because they have no choice in the matter, they need a place to live. But it's still greed raising the price.
      - fasteddie 4y ago
        The people actually building the buildings (developers) are, generally, different than the people renting out buildings (landlords). Developers profit when more units are built, landlords are hurt with increased competition. Also, recent California law was changed so that the maximum allowable annual rent increase is ~10% (still rough if you are hit with that, but better than 30%).
TulliusCicero 4y ago
Oh no, not companies making money by producing something people want! Anything but that! Seriously, I don't care if developers are "greedy". "Greedy" describes every business and most people!
civilian 4y ago
holy shit I love oligarchy now
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
darth_avocado 4y ago
And whose fault is it?
mediaman 4y ago
It's interesting to hear people describe government-organized supply restriction cartels as some sort of utopia, whereas, in their world, eliminating the cartel is in fact creating an "oligarchy."
robertlagrant 4y ago
> give developers more power over communities they have no interest in but money They make something that people would like. Calling that "power" is extremely unhelpful.
jmeister 4y ago
Who cares if the developers get rich? Do you(and the rest of society) get what you want? “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” ― Adam Smith
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > Do you(and the rest of society) get what you want? That is an interesting question. In many cases people here are advocating that the locals don't get what they want, so that "the rest of society" does.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    The NIMBY locals always think they represent the community when poll after poll shows that they do not. The process has been setup to allow a few squeaky wheels to have veto power over change. It's just pure narcissism of the NIMBY that all the other community members have the same belief as them.

HDThoreaun 4y ago

No, what this does is give developers the power to bring affordable housing to california. Them making money is just the incentive to do it. Silicon valley was already an oligarchy since housing affordability ensures only the wealthy can afford to vote in local elections.

matchbok 4y ago

They are building housing for people and are risking millions. How dare they make some money! How rude of them. Hint: Developers don't have power over communities, rich homeowners do.

mullingitover 4y ago

So much of the problems with housing in the state stem from the fact that lots of community members are valuing their investment in their own house over everything else. Housing can either be affordable or it can be a good investment, it really can't be both. At this point the market has been so perverted by entrenched interests blocking new development that I would be okay with a dictatorship of developers for a solid decade. It might be enough to dig us out of the hole we're in.

scop 4y ago
This is a point I don't often see discussed. I have friends and family in CA whose primary asset is their home, with little to nothing invested elsewhere (perhaps because of the high cost of living)...resulting in a mortgage they have no intention of ever paying off, little retirement savings, and fingers crossed for a cash-out down the line.
- nickspag 4y ago
  That's not all of it, either. Older buyers have gotten the lionshare of their wealth from housing appreciation by preventing new housing and pay a lower tax burden than new buyers due to Prop 13. There's a reason that when it made it to the supreme court Justice Stevens called it medeival and referred to entrenched owners as Squires. "During the two past decades, California property owners have enjoyed extraordinary prosperity. As the State's population has mushroomed, so has the value of its real estate. Between 1976 and 1986 alone, the total assessed value of California property subject to property taxation increased tenfold. Simply put, those who invested in California real estate in the 1970s are among the most fortunate capitalists in the world.Proposition 13 has provided these successful investors with a tremendous windfall and, in doing so, has created severe inequities in California's property tax scheme. These property owners (hereinafter "the Squires) are guaranteed that, so long as they retain their property and do not improve it, their taxes will not increase more than 2% in any given year. As a direct result of this windfall for the Squires, later purchasers must pay far more than their fair share of property taxes." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html
  - mullingitover 4y ago
    > and do not improve it This might be one of the craziest parts of it, and it makes me understand how a lot of neighborhoods in California just look sort of...dumpy. The system actively discourages you from improving a property! My dream is to see the state property tax code flipped to land value tax. No penalties for improving the property, just purely tax the value of the land and penalize people who park their vacant lots for year after year.
  - la64710 4y ago
    Yet you can hardly get a house sitting in the market even if it is more than a million dollars. Obviously the demand is very high.
- sa1 4y ago
  With this one-time change in zoning, they can cash out by converting their single family home to multi-family housing.

rcpt 4y ago

Home owners, not developers, get all the profits in real estate. https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2021/03/16/who-benefits-from-the-housing-market-graph-of-the-week/ https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2021/03/16/who-benefits-f...

rootusrootus 4y ago
Collectively, perhaps, but the developer who built my house has by far the biggest house in the area, on the nicest property, with the nicest cars, and Facebook albums filled to the brim with pictures of him meeting famous people I'll not ever get to schmooze with. I think his profit margin must be okay.

opportune 4y ago

Where does this narrative about evil greedy developers come from? If the new housing represents a net increase in people, then the developers are filling unmet demand. It’s not that different from restricting the supply of milk and getting angry that milk producers will make more money when those restrictions are lifted. Yeah, they will, but only because there is more demand for their product than they were previously legally allowed to satisfy. Developer margins should actually decrease when zoning is more permissive anyway. Right now in SF there is a whole cottage industry of “facilitators” and direct graft/corruption making it hard to build housing unless you know how to work the system. While it’s absolutely true that developers can cut corners, I personally don’t see them as any more evil than any other business.

TedShiller 4y ago
[flagged]
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  The fact that housing prices are high isn't a sign of greed: it's a sign of a constrained supply. Developers build housing, the price is set by what people are willing to pay.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - burntwater 4y ago
    The price is also set by developers. There's no reason for rent to increase 30-50% in a single year other than literal greed. Will people pay it? Yes, because they have no choice in the matter, they need a place to live. But it's still greed raising the price.
    - fasteddie 4y ago
      The people actually building the buildings (developers) are, generally, different than the people renting out buildings (landlords). Developers profit when more units are built, landlords are hurt with increased competition. Also, recent California law was changed so that the maximum allowable annual rent increase is ~10% (still rough if you are hit with that, but better than 30%).

TulliusCicero 4y ago

Oh no, not companies making money by producing something people want! Anything but that! Seriously, I don't care if developers are "greedy". "Greedy" describes every business and most people!

civilian 4y ago

holy shit I love oligarchy now

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

darth_avocado 4y ago

And whose fault is it?

mediaman 4y ago

It's interesting to hear people describe government-organized supply restriction cartels as some sort of utopia, whereas, in their world, eliminating the cartel is in fact creating an "oligarchy."

robertlagrant 4y ago

> give developers more power over communities they have no interest in but money They make something that people would like. Calling that "power" is extremely unhelpful.

jmeister 4y ago

Who cares if the developers get rich? Do you(and the rest of society) get what you want? “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” ― Adam Smith

rootusrootus 4y ago
> Do you(and the rest of society) get what you want? That is an interesting question. In many cases people here are advocating that the locals don't get what they want, so that "the rest of society" does.
- epistasis 4y ago
  The NIMBY locals always think they represent the community when poll after poll shows that they do not. The process has been setup to allow a few squeaky wheels to have veto power over change. It's just pure narcissism of the NIMBY that all the other community members have the same belief as them.