6 ms·

He makes a good point. Broadly, in the US, the pendulum swung from "just go build stuff and don't worry about the opposition because they don't matter" to "we h

by davidw 2y ago

He makes a good point. Broadly, in the US, the pendulum swung from "just go build stuff and don't worry about the opposition because they don't matter" to "we have to go through 5 years of process to build a 40-unit apartment building for people to live in". There are some good reasons for some of that process, but there's a strong argument that we went too far in saying no, slowing things down and in general not building things that are beneficial to society. And it turns out that some of that process doesn't actually help the more vulnerable groups it was intended to help, but gets hijacked by wealthy people to stop things like needed housing from going into their neighborhood.

PreachSoup 2y ago
> gets hijacked by wealthy people to stop things like needed housing from going into their neighborhood. Everything for inducing the demand and reducing the supply. The invisible hand of extracting values at all cost.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  I don’t think wealthy people are thinking too much about their property values when it comes to opposing building in their own neighborhoods. They want to maintain the social prestige they have from living somewhere fancy and they want to keep the poors away from their home.
  - PreachSoup 2y ago
    > social prestige they have from living somewhere fancy and they want to keep the poors away from their home. Value doesn't only mean monetary value. Social prestige is one of the values too. And sometimes they are transferable. The invisible hand is not just about the literal money
  - deprecative 2y ago
    Doesn't that seem to implicitly state that property values are precisely what they're thinking about when trying to keep the poors away? If the poors are able to move in then the value of the property must be inexpensive for them to be able to.
    - silisili 2y ago
      I've lived in two areas that this has happened, and will try to word it gently but honestly. The neighborhood was nice, low traffic, never lock your doors(so to speak). In comes 'low income housing', ie jamming as many terrible apartment complexes as they could wherever they could. Traffic shot way up, too much for the roads. Why would the developer care. Noise also shot up, constant noises of bass from cars at all hours. Lastly, crime shot up. I went from living almost in the middle of nowhere to having my car broken into twice in my own driveway. Sorry all, I agree that housing is a crisis, but I no longer want dense housing anywhere near me.
      - LoganDark 2y ago
        I wish normal housing were more affordable instead. Also, low-income housing sort of sucks. For example, in my area, some low-income apartments were recently constructed, but they do not have washer and dryer receptacles. It's not that they aren't included. You cannot even bring your own, because you won't have anything to hook them up to. Apparently, you are supposed to use the laundromat only. But now that people with low income can live there, suddenly my complex no longer has to worry about those people, because the availability of the low-income apartments reduces the amount of people who would even consider living here. Suddenly, you're not losing potential customers by raising the price, because all the customers that you would have been losing are now all living in the low-income apartments instead. That hurts people like me who have a higher standard of living (such as owning a washer and dryer) but still don't exactly make enough money to justify spending $2,000 a month for a two-bedroom apartment (ours is currently around $1,800). I suppose I'm the customer they'd be losing by raising the price, but the risk to them is probably still far lower now.
        silisili 2y ago
        Great points. I've often thought the most underserved group wrt housing are the working lower middle class. Which is weird, because that's how I grew up. We had tiny houses(5 of us in a house < 900sqft), but in decent blue collar neighborhoods where everyone was respectful and getting by. That just doesn't exist much today. You either spend more than you can afford to live with upper middle class in a house two sizes too big, or you live in shared low income apartments. They just don't build small SFH neighborhoods anymore, apparently.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > They want to maintain the social prestige they have from living somewhere fancy and they want to keep the poors away from their home. .. which they will literally state in terms of property value.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      I don't think property value is the root of it. Rather, property value is the polite face they put on it, while their real concern is things like crime, whether it be petty vandalism and litter or more serious crime. It might not be fair for them to associate low income housing with crime, but I think this association is intuitively obvious to many if not most of the rich people living in exclusive neighborhoods.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        While there may be some material value to a property, as the saying goes: Location, location, location. In other words, it is the things like crime that ultimately define a property's value. That is why property value decline is of concern to property owners. It is all the same at the end of the day.
      - chucksta 2y ago
        You don't think people in low income areas are concerned about crime in their neighborhoods?
        lupusreal 2y ago
        I didn't say that, did I? Why do you believe I think that?
        chucksta 2y ago
        TBF you didn't say it - It appeared that way if you followed the logic at the time regarding the gp you responded to two posts up about keeping poors away.
      - 2y ago
te_chris 2y ago
Didn’t Andreesen publish a self important manifesto about building then block local development near his home? Such a perfect example.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  It’s time to build… somewhere over there please and yes as a private market evangelist I’ll use state power against private parties to protect my interests.
surfingdino 2y ago
> And it turns out that some of that process doesn't actually help the more vulnerable groups it was intended to help, but gets hijacked by wealthy people (...) Welcome to London, UK
- mlrtime 2y ago
  Wait what? As an American that lived in London and also NY/Chicago I always though London did mixed housing very well (but not perfect). There are council houses spread throughout London with no real "slums" like Chicago used to have with it's public housing.
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    https://youtu.be/y6ADuQOXMmA?si=G-5eVxRrNnEolJrO https://youtu.be/y6ADuQOXMmA?si=G-5eVxRrNnEolJrO this American does not quite agree with you.
creer 2y ago
"Slowing things down" also directly translates to "more expensive". Both by having to hold the property in the meantime (or rights to it) - cost of money, and by having to bride layer after layer of consulted people and administrations with expensive features that even the developer and future buyers agree are not optimal, and by having to professionally manage endless extra paperwork and meetings.
fasa99 2y ago
In California the permit laws are aggressive and slow, so much so that it's common practice to make most modifications unpermitted. This severely limits new home supply, because permits include new homes. The solution? Federal program which gives huge subsidies to purchasing an expensive home (they give you a cut to buy the house, no interest, and they take a cut when you sell). This is complicated by a property tax law similar to rent control, where your taxes are frozen at the time of purchase. This results in a market where few people are willing to sell and most people are unable to build. Thus rental prices in the region are dirt cheap relative to home prices, versus an appalachian town where the opposite is true. For me, this is an example of red light cameras causing MORE accidents than without the camera because it interferes with human behavior. Specifically, the painfully slow permit process causes most building to be done unpermitted and therefore at risk of harm to human life (the purpose of the permit is to assure safety). As we know, the unspoken purpose of the red light camera is revenue, thus representing a conflict of interest between true safety and revenue, and I think a similar conflict is rotting California's real estate situation as well, in service to wealth building more than it's in service to the common man.

by davidw 2y ago

PreachSoup 2y ago

> gets hijacked by wealthy people to stop things like needed housing from going into their neighborhood. Everything for inducing the demand and reducing the supply. The invisible hand of extracting values at all cost.

pfannkuchen 2y ago
I don’t think wealthy people are thinking too much about their property values when it comes to opposing building in their own neighborhoods. They want to maintain the social prestige they have from living somewhere fancy and they want to keep the poors away from their home.
- PreachSoup 2y ago
  > social prestige they have from living somewhere fancy and they want to keep the poors away from their home. Value doesn't only mean monetary value. Social prestige is one of the values too. And sometimes they are transferable. The invisible hand is not just about the literal money
- deprecative 2y ago
  Doesn't that seem to implicitly state that property values are precisely what they're thinking about when trying to keep the poors away? If the poors are able to move in then the value of the property must be inexpensive for them to be able to.
  - silisili 2y ago
    I've lived in two areas that this has happened, and will try to word it gently but honestly. The neighborhood was nice, low traffic, never lock your doors(so to speak). In comes 'low income housing', ie jamming as many terrible apartment complexes as they could wherever they could. Traffic shot way up, too much for the roads. Why would the developer care. Noise also shot up, constant noises of bass from cars at all hours. Lastly, crime shot up. I went from living almost in the middle of nowhere to having my car broken into twice in my own driveway. Sorry all, I agree that housing is a crisis, but I no longer want dense housing anywhere near me.
    - LoganDark 2y ago
      I wish normal housing were more affordable instead. Also, low-income housing sort of sucks. For example, in my area, some low-income apartments were recently constructed, but they do not have washer and dryer receptacles. It's not that they aren't included. You cannot even bring your own, because you won't have anything to hook them up to. Apparently, you are supposed to use the laundromat only. But now that people with low income can live there, suddenly my complex no longer has to worry about those people, because the availability of the low-income apartments reduces the amount of people who would even consider living here. Suddenly, you're not losing potential customers by raising the price, because all the customers that you would have been losing are now all living in the low-income apartments instead. That hurts people like me who have a higher standard of living (such as owning a washer and dryer) but still don't exactly make enough money to justify spending $2,000 a month for a two-bedroom apartment (ours is currently around $1,800). I suppose I'm the customer they'd be losing by raising the price, but the risk to them is probably still far lower now.
      - silisili 2y ago
        Great points. I've often thought the most underserved group wrt housing are the working lower middle class. Which is weird, because that's how I grew up. We had tiny houses(5 of us in a house < 900sqft), but in decent blue collar neighborhoods where everyone was respectful and getting by. That just doesn't exist much today. You either spend more than you can afford to live with upper middle class in a house two sizes too big, or you live in shared low income apartments. They just don't build small SFH neighborhoods anymore, apparently.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > They want to maintain the social prestige they have from living somewhere fancy and they want to keep the poors away from their home. .. which they will literally state in terms of property value.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    I don't think property value is the root of it. Rather, property value is the polite face they put on it, while their real concern is things like crime, whether it be petty vandalism and litter or more serious crime. It might not be fair for them to associate low income housing with crime, but I think this association is intuitively obvious to many if not most of the rich people living in exclusive neighborhoods.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      While there may be some material value to a property, as the saying goes: Location, location, location. In other words, it is the things like crime that ultimately define a property's value. That is why property value decline is of concern to property owners. It is all the same at the end of the day.
    - chucksta 2y ago
      You don't think people in low income areas are concerned about crime in their neighborhoods?
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        I didn't say that, did I? Why do you believe I think that?
        chucksta 2y ago
        TBF you didn't say it - It appeared that way if you followed the logic at the time regarding the gp you responded to two posts up about keeping poors away.
    - 2y ago

te_chris 2y ago

Didn’t Andreesen publish a self important manifesto about building then block local development near his home? Such a perfect example.

llamaimperative 2y ago
It’s time to build… somewhere over there please and yes as a private market evangelist I’ll use state power against private parties to protect my interests.

surfingdino 2y ago

> And it turns out that some of that process doesn't actually help the more vulnerable groups it was intended to help, but gets hijacked by wealthy people (...) Welcome to London, UK

mlrtime 2y ago
Wait what? As an American that lived in London and also NY/Chicago I always though London did mixed housing very well (but not perfect). There are council houses spread throughout London with no real "slums" like Chicago used to have with it's public housing.
- surfingdino 2y ago
  https://youtu.be/y6ADuQOXMmA?si=G-5eVxRrNnEolJrO https://youtu.be/y6ADuQOXMmA?si=G-5eVxRrNnEolJrO this American does not quite agree with you.

creer 2y ago

"Slowing things down" also directly translates to "more expensive". Both by having to hold the property in the meantime (or rights to it) - cost of money, and by having to bride layer after layer of consulted people and administrations with expensive features that even the developer and future buyers agree are not optimal, and by having to professionally manage endless extra paperwork and meetings.

fasa99 2y ago

In California the permit laws are aggressive and slow, so much so that it's common practice to make most modifications unpermitted. This severely limits new home supply, because permits include new homes. The solution? Federal program which gives huge subsidies to purchasing an expensive home (they give you a cut to buy the house, no interest, and they take a cut when you sell). This is complicated by a property tax law similar to rent control, where your taxes are frozen at the time of purchase. This results in a market where few people are willing to sell and most people are unable to build. Thus rental prices in the region are dirt cheap relative to home prices, versus an appalachian town where the opposite is true. For me, this is an example of red light cameras causing MORE accidents than without the camera because it interferes with human behavior. Specifically, the painfully slow permit process causes most building to be done unpermitted and therefore at risk of harm to human life (the purpose of the permit is to assure safety). As we know, the unspoken purpose of the red light camera is revenue, thus representing a conflict of interest between true safety and revenue, and I think a similar conflict is rotting California's real estate situation as well, in service to wealth building more than it's in service to the common man.