6 ms·

It all comes down to housing. If you make it affordable to build housing, you make housing affordable. If you make housing affordable, then you make services af

It all comes down to housing. If you make it affordable to build housing, you make housing affordable. If you make housing affordable, then you make services affordable.

jleyank 4y ago
I wonder whether homeowners talking about more affordable housing realize that includes their own house likely declining in value….
- eropple 4y ago
  Dunno about in SF, but I certainly realize it. And I don't care. I bought the place to live in. I don't plan to sell it for decades. I will have gotten my money's worth out of it no matter what. Which is why I absolutely advocate locally for more housing.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Home value does not (generally) matter to you day to day if you plan to actually live there. Hell, if the value of your home goes down that could lower your property taxes! Of course in the US, homes are first and foremost an investment, so losing resale value is one of the worst things that could happen to a homeowner, or something.
  - jleyank 4y ago
    Only issues I can think of would be going underwater on a mortgage which might cause financial problems or having the price or liquidity drop when you need to sell short term.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    > Home value does not (generally) matter to you day to day if you plan to actually live there. Until you retire or for other reasons find yourself living on a fixed (and possibly diminished) income, while property taxes based on home value continue to rise.
    - kevingadd 4y ago
      That would make your home value going down a good thing, wouldn't it?
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        It would, indeed. Hard to get that timing right, though.
- trgn 4y ago
  House value means nothing. For home owners, it's a guarantee to be able to stay in place. Californian home owners are all millionaires, but will never see that wealth materialize if they or their children want to stay in the same area.
  - dehrmann 4y ago
    This isn't how homes are sold to people. They're sold as "investments" and "stores of wealth."
- adrr 4y ago
  If you own a single family home, your home value is going to skyrocket like NY. Remove restrictions around height and multi family zoning.
- SyzygistSix 4y ago
  That's why so many people oppose multi-family housing, even so-called progressives.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zamnos 4y ago
  Does it have to though? Think about startup fundraising rounds. At the very beginning, the founders own 100% of a $0 company. let's say they give up 15% for $150k at a $1mm valuation. 85% of $1mm is worth more than 100% of $0. So then a series B, for another 15% but this time at $10mm valuation. They're diluted down to 70%, but it's of $10mm, which equals $7mm. What does this have to do with housing? Well as a city grows, existing housing can become more valuable, along with more housing also becoming available. So similar to cases where dilution doesn't agree over existing shareholders because they now own a smaller piece of a much larger pie, so too then owners of existing housing also appreciate, rather than depreciate in value.
godzillabrennus 4y ago
The fact that San Francisco does not have the population density of Manhattan is a testament to the impact of NIMBYISM.
- carapace 4y ago
  SF is roughly three hundred years younger than NYC.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    Is that relevant for the amount of houses they can build? I feel like if you were truly motivated they could have had over New York's population by now if they were to build homes and skyscrapers. It doesn't take 100 or 200 years to build a skyscraper, they could simultaneously start like 20 of them every year.

It all comes down to housing. If you make it affordable to build housing, you make housing affordable. If you make housing affordable, then you make services affordable.

jleyank 4y ago

I wonder whether homeowners talking about more affordable housing realize that includes their own house likely declining in value….

eropple 4y ago
Dunno about in SF, but I certainly realize it. And I don't care. I bought the place to live in. I don't plan to sell it for decades. I will have gotten my money's worth out of it no matter what. Which is why I absolutely advocate locally for more housing.
kevingadd 4y ago
Home value does not (generally) matter to you day to day if you plan to actually live there. Hell, if the value of your home goes down that could lower your property taxes! Of course in the US, homes are first and foremost an investment, so losing resale value is one of the worst things that could happen to a homeowner, or something.
- jleyank 4y ago
  Only issues I can think of would be going underwater on a mortgage which might cause financial problems or having the price or liquidity drop when you need to sell short term.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > Home value does not (generally) matter to you day to day if you plan to actually live there. Until you retire or for other reasons find yourself living on a fixed (and possibly diminished) income, while property taxes based on home value continue to rise.
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    That would make your home value going down a good thing, wouldn't it?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      It would, indeed. Hard to get that timing right, though.
trgn 4y ago
House value means nothing. For home owners, it's a guarantee to be able to stay in place. Californian home owners are all millionaires, but will never see that wealth materialize if they or their children want to stay in the same area.
- dehrmann 4y ago
  This isn't how homes are sold to people. They're sold as "investments" and "stores of wealth."
adrr 4y ago
If you own a single family home, your home value is going to skyrocket like NY. Remove restrictions around height and multi family zoning.
SyzygistSix 4y ago
That's why so many people oppose multi-family housing, even so-called progressives.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zamnos 4y ago
Does it have to though? Think about startup fundraising rounds. At the very beginning, the founders own 100% of a $0 company. let's say they give up 15% for $150k at a $1mm valuation. 85% of $1mm is worth more than 100% of $0. So then a series B, for another 15% but this time at $10mm valuation. They're diluted down to 70%, but it's of $10mm, which equals $7mm. What does this have to do with housing? Well as a city grows, existing housing can become more valuable, along with more housing also becoming available. So similar to cases where dilution doesn't agree over existing shareholders because they now own a smaller piece of a much larger pie, so too then owners of existing housing also appreciate, rather than depreciate in value.

godzillabrennus 4y ago

The fact that San Francisco does not have the population density of Manhattan is a testament to the impact of NIMBYISM.

carapace 4y ago
SF is roughly three hundred years younger than NYC.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Is that relevant for the amount of houses they can build? I feel like if you were truly motivated they could have had over New York's population by now if they were to build homes and skyscrapers. It doesn't take 100 or 200 years to build a skyscraper, they could simultaneously start like 20 of them every year.