6 ms·

> "I'm more concerned of big land developers coming in and seeing this charred land as an opportunity to rebuild," Of course, people like that will organize to

> "I'm more concerned of big land developers coming in and seeing this charred land as an opportunity to rebuild," Of course, people like that will organize to block these big bad developers making housing even more expensive and the only people who will be able to afford to live there will be the rich.

nwienert 3y ago
Hawaii doesn’t want lots of development, don’t try and force it on them. What America should do at large is block all non resident investment in non commercial real estate, period. Would do a hell of a lot more for housing than all the nonsense about building more.
- weeksie 3y ago
  Well, it's not even a matter of that. If they don't want new development then the price of what's already there will only skyrocket and that will end up excluding the residents. In other words, by refusing to develop, the residents of Hawaii are displacing their own natives, unless they happen to own land. This alternative system where the only folks allowed to own property are those who are born there is something I hear a lot of anti-housing people advocate and it's disturbingly similar to the hukou[1] system, which we probably don't want to emulate. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou
  - nwienert 3y ago
    That system already exists in Hawaii actually. There’s lots of land you can’t own as a non-native.
    - weeksie 3y ago
      If you're arguing that Hawaii should be returned to the Natives and they should have some kind of tribal rule, that's certainly something that you can advocate for. In a world where this part of Hawaii exists within the US system of property rights, you're arguing that we should grant the current landowners (whoever they may be) perpetual rights to the extract land rents. Of course, given how expensive housing becomes when it is restricted in a high-demand location the implication is that the only folks who will be able to live there are the rich.
      - nwienert 3y ago
        Not arguing just saying that's how it is now. Hawaii is a highly limited resource. Simple as that. So you have a choice: - Develop it more to keep prices a bit down. In exchange you are actively sacrificing what makes it desirable in the first place (beautiful nature). - Don't develop it further, and accept high prices. Neither is ideal. I wish we could have 100 Hawaii's and everyone could live in Hawaii. But out of the two options we have, keeping Hawaii expensive and beautiful is the only one that makes sense. Developing it sacrifices what people like about it anyway. I also think in general you should listen to what local people want and not advocate for things against their interests. Just as a rule of thumb. The alternative is basically colonization (pushing an agenda against the interests of the people who live somewhere).
        weeksie 3y ago
        > you are actively sacrificing what makes it desirable in the first place Amazing how the carrying capacity of every location just happens to be exactly the number of people who live there at this moment in time. > I also think in general you should listen to what local people want and not advocate for things against their interests. Just as a rule of thumb. The alternative is basically colonization (pushing an agenda against the interests of the people who live somewhere). The local people quoted in the article want to be able to live somewhere. Building enough housing for them to live in gives them that, even if they don't understand it because their heads are full of xenophobic nonsense. The guy who I quoted above is a renter, he will eventually be priced out. The guy who owns the house he was renting will build a new house or sell to someone else and they will rent it at a much higher rate.
        nwienert 3y ago
        Why do you assume the baseline density for places is almost always low? That to me seems like as unlikely of an assumption as assuming they are always at capacity or too high. For example to me the places I’ve lived - San Francisco is at a good density. I don’t want more high rises, the Victorians are charming and the sunlight while walking on the streets is already being eroded by ugly 4-story developments. San Diego - also pretty good as is. Again why ruin the sunlight and nature by going up? Maybe downtown and fill in a bit more but not outside. Hawaii - Waikiki is crowded and mostly ugly, so I have all the proof I need it’s not desirable to have that spread any further. Congestion traffic is super high due to tourism many times of the year. The charm of Hawaii is directly linked to its lack of development, you can’t convince me (or like 99% of people) otherwise. Just ask around who wants more high rises there, will be an easy poll to run.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    > This alternative system where the only folks allowed to own property are those who are born there is something I hear a lot of anti-housing people advocate and it's disturbingly similar to the hukou[1] system, which we probably don't want to emulate. In many cities you can own land if you don't have hukou, or even Chinese citizenship. It was only in 2012 or so that Beijing instituted a residency requirement (but not a hukou requirement) for buying a house in the city (other cities have similar but still slightly different rules, so you have to do your research). Wenzhou housewives were the scourge of non-Wenzhou Chinese real estate markets before they started investing in real estate abroad.
- balderdash 3y ago
  How would any sort of multi-family housing get built?
  - jaywalk 3y ago
    Maybe they don't want multi-family housing?
- Aunche 3y ago
  "I've always wanted to move to a tropical paradise, but I'm giving up because I'd have to move to a single family instead of a 5-over-1 apartment complex." Said no one ever.
  - nwienert 3y ago
    It’s telling you seem to have no consideration for what locals want, but instead only consider the pov of the outsider who feels they have some right to live there for cheap. By the way, the more you develop it, the less tropical it is.
    - Aunche 3y ago
      If they don't want outsiders driving demand for local housing, than the should focus their efforts on being hostile to outsiders. Attacking developers that are helping to soak up that demand is just going to make housing even less affordable.
      - nwienert 3y ago
        Attacking developers is being hostile to outsiders, exactly.
        Aunche 3y ago
        Then they need to accept that housing prices will rise because of this. It's as simple as that.
        nwienert 3y ago
        Agree. Or add more protections, though there aren't that many natives by number and they already have protected land.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    What, and sit on a beach, have sand everywhere all the time, have to live with grody feet, in an uncomfortable hot, probably humid climate, and have almost nonexistent night life and go to sleep at sundown? No thanks. You may not want to, but you don't speak for everyone. In particular, the 5-over-1 means that there's a business, maybe a cute cafe, or a little market you can access without having to drive a car. Hell, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37124015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37124015 is on the front page right now arguing how bad driving is for your mental health. Some people can't drive, for various reasons (eg the elderly with poor eyesight), and would have a lower quality of life living in a single family home. So please appreciate that while you may never say that, it's entirely your perogative, but yes, said plenty of people.
- pgodzin 3y ago
  Yes, it would make sure that development tanks across the US, just like you want it to happen in Hawaii.
- the_lego 3y ago
  Ironic, isn't it? The same people that will sing "They paved paradise to put up a parking lot", are also against any effective measures to prevent that turn of events.
  - happytoexplain 3y ago
    You're inventing the image of a hypocrite based on very high-level stereotypes. When somebody opines, "The same people who...", it is in most cases a fallacious integration of things they have seen or heard into a single imagined type of human that is not highly represented in reality. Essentially a straw man. People can have different opinions about similar things without necessarily being hypocritical. In fact, declining to accuse "these people"/"those people"/"the same people" of this kind of hypocrisy is a great example of what is meant when we say that you should be "charitable" or "give the benefit of the doubt".
    - nwienert 3y ago
      In this case it really is a case where people mindlessly advocate for more development but at the same time extol the virtues of Hawaii's natural beauty. Even in this thread there are people arguing for development while acknowledging the entire reason it's desirable is nature.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  Ok, fair enough, they don't want development and that is their right but they have to understand, as their population grows they're only pricing themselves out of their own land. I agree wholeheartedly with the second paragraph.

nwienert 3y ago

Hawaii doesn’t want lots of development, don’t try and force it on them. What America should do at large is block all non resident investment in non commercial real estate, period. Would do a hell of a lot more for housing than all the nonsense about building more.

weeksie 3y ago
Well, it's not even a matter of that. If they don't want new development then the price of what's already there will only skyrocket and that will end up excluding the residents. In other words, by refusing to develop, the residents of Hawaii are displacing their own natives, unless they happen to own land. This alternative system where the only folks allowed to own property are those who are born there is something I hear a lot of anti-housing people advocate and it's disturbingly similar to the hukou[1] system, which we probably don't want to emulate. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou
- nwienert 3y ago
  That system already exists in Hawaii actually. There’s lots of land you can’t own as a non-native.
  - weeksie 3y ago
    If you're arguing that Hawaii should be returned to the Natives and they should have some kind of tribal rule, that's certainly something that you can advocate for. In a world where this part of Hawaii exists within the US system of property rights, you're arguing that we should grant the current landowners (whoever they may be) perpetual rights to the extract land rents. Of course, given how expensive housing becomes when it is restricted in a high-demand location the implication is that the only folks who will be able to live there are the rich.
    - nwienert 3y ago
      Not arguing just saying that's how it is now. Hawaii is a highly limited resource. Simple as that. So you have a choice: - Develop it more to keep prices a bit down. In exchange you are actively sacrificing what makes it desirable in the first place (beautiful nature). - Don't develop it further, and accept high prices. Neither is ideal. I wish we could have 100 Hawaii's and everyone could live in Hawaii. But out of the two options we have, keeping Hawaii expensive and beautiful is the only one that makes sense. Developing it sacrifices what people like about it anyway. I also think in general you should listen to what local people want and not advocate for things against their interests. Just as a rule of thumb. The alternative is basically colonization (pushing an agenda against the interests of the people who live somewhere).
      - weeksie 3y ago
        > you are actively sacrificing what makes it desirable in the first place Amazing how the carrying capacity of every location just happens to be exactly the number of people who live there at this moment in time. > I also think in general you should listen to what local people want and not advocate for things against their interests. Just as a rule of thumb. The alternative is basically colonization (pushing an agenda against the interests of the people who live somewhere). The local people quoted in the article want to be able to live somewhere. Building enough housing for them to live in gives them that, even if they don't understand it because their heads are full of xenophobic nonsense. The guy who I quoted above is a renter, he will eventually be priced out. The guy who owns the house he was renting will build a new house or sell to someone else and they will rent it at a much higher rate.
        nwienert 3y ago
        Why do you assume the baseline density for places is almost always low? That to me seems like as unlikely of an assumption as assuming they are always at capacity or too high. For example to me the places I’ve lived - San Francisco is at a good density. I don’t want more high rises, the Victorians are charming and the sunlight while walking on the streets is already being eroded by ugly 4-story developments. San Diego - also pretty good as is. Again why ruin the sunlight and nature by going up? Maybe downtown and fill in a bit more but not outside. Hawaii - Waikiki is crowded and mostly ugly, so I have all the proof I need it’s not desirable to have that spread any further. Congestion traffic is super high due to tourism many times of the year. The charm of Hawaii is directly linked to its lack of development, you can’t convince me (or like 99% of people) otherwise. Just ask around who wants more high rises there, will be an easy poll to run.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  > This alternative system where the only folks allowed to own property are those who are born there is something I hear a lot of anti-housing people advocate and it's disturbingly similar to the hukou[1] system, which we probably don't want to emulate. In many cities you can own land if you don't have hukou, or even Chinese citizenship. It was only in 2012 or so that Beijing instituted a residency requirement (but not a hukou requirement) for buying a house in the city (other cities have similar but still slightly different rules, so you have to do your research). Wenzhou housewives were the scourge of non-Wenzhou Chinese real estate markets before they started investing in real estate abroad.
balderdash 3y ago
How would any sort of multi-family housing get built?
- jaywalk 3y ago
  Maybe they don't want multi-family housing?
Aunche 3y ago
"I've always wanted to move to a tropical paradise, but I'm giving up because I'd have to move to a single family instead of a 5-over-1 apartment complex." Said no one ever.
- nwienert 3y ago
  It’s telling you seem to have no consideration for what locals want, but instead only consider the pov of the outsider who feels they have some right to live there for cheap. By the way, the more you develop it, the less tropical it is.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    If they don't want outsiders driving demand for local housing, than the should focus their efforts on being hostile to outsiders. Attacking developers that are helping to soak up that demand is just going to make housing even less affordable.
    - nwienert 3y ago
      Attacking developers is being hostile to outsiders, exactly.
      - Aunche 3y ago
        Then they need to accept that housing prices will rise because of this. It's as simple as that.
        nwienert 3y ago
        Agree. Or add more protections, though there aren't that many natives by number and they already have protected land.
- fragmede 3y ago
  What, and sit on a beach, have sand everywhere all the time, have to live with grody feet, in an uncomfortable hot, probably humid climate, and have almost nonexistent night life and go to sleep at sundown? No thanks. You may not want to, but you don't speak for everyone. In particular, the 5-over-1 means that there's a business, maybe a cute cafe, or a little market you can access without having to drive a car. Hell, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37124015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37124015 is on the front page right now arguing how bad driving is for your mental health. Some people can't drive, for various reasons (eg the elderly with poor eyesight), and would have a lower quality of life living in a single family home. So please appreciate that while you may never say that, it's entirely your perogative, but yes, said plenty of people.
pgodzin 3y ago
Yes, it would make sure that development tanks across the US, just like you want it to happen in Hawaii.
the_lego 3y ago
Ironic, isn't it? The same people that will sing "They paved paradise to put up a parking lot", are also against any effective measures to prevent that turn of events.
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  You're inventing the image of a hypocrite based on very high-level stereotypes. When somebody opines, "The same people who...", it is in most cases a fallacious integration of things they have seen or heard into a single imagined type of human that is not highly represented in reality. Essentially a straw man. People can have different opinions about similar things without necessarily being hypocritical. In fact, declining to accuse "these people"/"those people"/"the same people" of this kind of hypocrisy is a great example of what is meant when we say that you should be "charitable" or "give the benefit of the doubt".
  - nwienert 3y ago
    In this case it really is a case where people mindlessly advocate for more development but at the same time extol the virtues of Hawaii's natural beauty. Even in this thread there are people arguing for development while acknowledging the entire reason it's desirable is nature.
friend_and_foe 3y ago
Ok, fair enough, they don't want development and that is their right but they have to understand, as their population grows they're only pricing themselves out of their own land. I agree wholeheartedly with the second paragraph.