4 ms·

The zeitgeist moves slow until it has to. I think we’ll have to do the America thing and exhaust every other option like banning foreign property ownership and

The zeitgeist moves slow until it has to. I think we’ll have to do the America thing and exhaust every other option like banning foreign property ownership and short term rentals and vacation houses before we get to actually changing local zoning laws. I’m actually not sure it will ever happen. San Francisco is more likely to see the housing density it deserves from a nuclear war that razes it and removes the nimby political machine than people coming together and doing the right thing. Like, given the choice between the status quo, and their kids being able to live in their neighborhood, our parents have chosen. And they’re the ones that show up to vote.

brailsafe 3y ago
I mean, B.C and a few others are implementing broad upzoning legislation, but there's still quite a ways to go. There's this whole b.s about building "around transit hubs" which will continue perpetuating a wealth divide if the only place people can realistically live is "where the busses are"
- daedrdev 3y ago
  Building around transit hubs where people might not need a car its still better than no new housing at all though.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    The key is to build more housing units - if an area needs 50k more dwellings it doesn’t terribly matter if you build 50k luxury space apartments or 50k hovels - either is much better than arguing about it’d or decades and building nothing.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - fragmede 3y ago
      For whom? The locals who like their way of life selfishly don't want things to change. And unfortunately, the people who already live there are the ones who control whether or not new construction is allowed.
    - brailsafe 3y ago
      That would have been true if they didn't already spend those decades arguing instead of building anything which would theoretically reduce the general scarcity. It doesn't make it worth arguing over to the point pf delay now, but it matters that it's only feasible to build 50k luxury units by displacing the last hovels in the tiny amount of new space opened up for them since the 50s
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    Any is better than none is such a bleak standard. It's fine though, just upzone the inner streets around transit hubs too, and we'll still be allowing more than none
- lwansbrough 3y ago
  I don’t really understand your point? If you build density around transit hubs everyone will be able to afford to live closer to the city and within walking distance of transit and thus not need a car.
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    My point is kind of exactly that, it's agreeable and it's better than nothing so people don't feel like it's worth complaining about. What about the streets between transit hubs and off of main thoroughfares? They get at most fourplexes, pretty inoffensive. So yes, build and auto upzone the transit stations for people who'd otherwise live somewhere else and arbitrarily live where they'll commute elsewhere and come home, but that just extends downtown for the rich people who'd otherwise be there in this awful compromise. I live about 15 mins walk from the train, and don't own a vehicle, but everyone who doesn't own a $2m house lives in the basements of those houses, or in the apartments that tend to just be on the main thoroughfares subject to apparently unavoidable car noise anyway. If you didn't commute downtown, would you feel like only being able to live next to a bus exchange would be suitable?
BelleOfTheBall 3y ago
> banning foreign property ownership Don't you worry, a completely local conglomerate will gladly buy all those houses and that conglomerate may be owned by foreign citizens, but the company would be 100% American. I know this is very pessimistic but we've all seen how lenient we get with corporations and I don't expect this to be an exception.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  It's completely irrelevant. If people need 500,000 housing units and there are 400,000 housing units, you can assign ownership of the 400,000 existing units to whoever you like and you're still going to be 100,000 short. The only solution is to build the needed additional units.
  - ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
    But there is a seemingly infinite supply of fiat but a finiye supply of housing. Only way is to property tax second homes to a very very high degree. Edit: the problem we are trying to solve is getting people a first home, so naturally other categories must suffer untill the problem is solved
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > there is a seemingly infinite supply of fiat This is simply nonsense. If it was the case then the price of housing and stocks and any other asset would be infinite because investors would continuously pour their infinite money into anything valuable that had a finite price. It would also stop happening if housing prices stopped going up, because investors want investments that go up. > Only way is to property tax second homes to a very very high degree. So now the property is owned by a corporation who rents it to the corporation's owner (or the owner's buddy). Unless you intend to do the same thing to all landlords, in which case you can expect rents to increase. You have to build more housing. There is nothing else for it.
      - willis936 3y ago
willis936 3y ago
What we really need to be doing is aligning harmonious incentives by heavily taxing rental and vacant housing profits. Incentivize private individuals having equity in their home that way it's a means of individual security rather than a shareholder value maximizer.
bentt 3y ago
Burlington VT just revised its zoning pretty radically. Keep an eye on it for a few years.

brailsafe 3y ago

I mean, B.C and a few others are implementing broad upzoning legislation, but there's still quite a ways to go. There's this whole b.s about building "around transit hubs" which will continue perpetuating a wealth divide if the only place people can realistically live is "where the busses are"

daedrdev 3y ago
Building around transit hubs where people might not need a car its still better than no new housing at all though.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The key is to build more housing units - if an area needs 50k more dwellings it doesn’t terribly matter if you build 50k luxury space apartments or 50k hovels - either is much better than arguing about it’d or decades and building nothing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - fragmede 3y ago
    For whom? The locals who like their way of life selfishly don't want things to change. And unfortunately, the people who already live there are the ones who control whether or not new construction is allowed.
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    That would have been true if they didn't already spend those decades arguing instead of building anything which would theoretically reduce the general scarcity. It doesn't make it worth arguing over to the point pf delay now, but it matters that it's only feasible to build 50k luxury units by displacing the last hovels in the tiny amount of new space opened up for them since the 50s
- brailsafe 3y ago
  Any is better than none is such a bleak standard. It's fine though, just upzone the inner streets around transit hubs too, and we'll still be allowing more than none
lwansbrough 3y ago
I don’t really understand your point? If you build density around transit hubs everyone will be able to afford to live closer to the city and within walking distance of transit and thus not need a car.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  My point is kind of exactly that, it's agreeable and it's better than nothing so people don't feel like it's worth complaining about. What about the streets between transit hubs and off of main thoroughfares? They get at most fourplexes, pretty inoffensive. So yes, build and auto upzone the transit stations for people who'd otherwise live somewhere else and arbitrarily live where they'll commute elsewhere and come home, but that just extends downtown for the rich people who'd otherwise be there in this awful compromise. I live about 15 mins walk from the train, and don't own a vehicle, but everyone who doesn't own a $2m house lives in the basements of those houses, or in the apartments that tend to just be on the main thoroughfares subject to apparently unavoidable car noise anyway. If you didn't commute downtown, would you feel like only being able to live next to a bus exchange would be suitable?

BelleOfTheBall 3y ago

> banning foreign property ownership Don't you worry, a completely local conglomerate will gladly buy all those houses and that conglomerate may be owned by foreign citizens, but the company would be 100% American. I know this is very pessimistic but we've all seen how lenient we get with corporations and I don't expect this to be an exception.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
It's completely irrelevant. If people need 500,000 housing units and there are 400,000 housing units, you can assign ownership of the 400,000 existing units to whoever you like and you're still going to be 100,000 short. The only solution is to build the needed additional units.
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
  But there is a seemingly infinite supply of fiat but a finiye supply of housing. Only way is to property tax second homes to a very very high degree. Edit: the problem we are trying to solve is getting people a first home, so naturally other categories must suffer untill the problem is solved
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > there is a seemingly infinite supply of fiat This is simply nonsense. If it was the case then the price of housing and stocks and any other asset would be infinite because investors would continuously pour their infinite money into anything valuable that had a finite price. It would also stop happening if housing prices stopped going up, because investors want investments that go up. > Only way is to property tax second homes to a very very high degree. So now the property is owned by a corporation who rents it to the corporation's owner (or the owner's buddy). Unless you intend to do the same thing to all landlords, in which case you can expect rents to increase. You have to build more housing. There is nothing else for it.
    - willis936 3y ago

willis936 3y ago

What we really need to be doing is aligning harmonious incentives by heavily taxing rental and vacant housing profits. Incentivize private individuals having equity in their home that way it's a means of individual security rather than a shareholder value maximizer.

bentt 3y ago

Burlington VT just revised its zoning pretty radically. Keep an eye on it for a few years.