5 ms·

"Here's what people said:" before the actual list was super annoying. > Allow single‑stair buildings up to 6 stories This seemed like a terrible suggestion, b

by larrik 1y ago

"Here's what people said:" before the actual list was super annoying. > Allow single‑stair buildings up to 6 stories This seemed like a terrible suggestion, but it caused me to google it and now I see it's not that terrible. I didn't fully understand all of these, and some are clearly specific to California. I also worry about some of these opening the floodgates for greedy developers (a lot of existing laws are due to some developer doing something ridiculous, collapsing, and leaving the municipality holding the bag). Overall I like the direction, though.

cjbarber 1y ago
> "Here's what people said:" before the actual list was super annoying. Updated now
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
"Greedy developers" is a signal someone doesn't know anything about real estate. It's up there with "late-stage capitalism" as a sure sign someone doesn't understand the subject matter.
- larrik 1y ago
  Well, mother-in-law's developer collapsed in the middle of building their development, and managed to empty the escrow accounts using forgery and fraud on the way out the door. That's not really the same scale as what we're talking about here, so much, though. Being from Connecticut, this case comes to mind as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London Where a developer planned some huge build, forced people out of their homes via eminent domain, and then never actually broke ground at all. These companies shut down once they hit some snag and then pop up somewhere else under a different name.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    You named two developments vs the entirety of the modern physical world that you interact with every day. Edit: also you misrepresented one of the examples. The developer did NOT use the power of eminent domain. The elected officials of the City of New London used eminent domain.
harmmonica 1y ago
Sorry to focus on the greedy developers comment, but one thing I'd ask you to consider is that sometimes you need some greedy developers to balance things out a bit. The US has gotten so bad at building housing supply to meet the demand that prices have obviously gotten out of whack. The past several years in Austin, TX, though, as an example, have shown that unshackling some greedy developers to come in and build is actually good for the masses because it leads to reduced rents/prices. That's not the entire story in Austin, but it is a major reason prices have come down. I feel like we've been out of balance for so long (decades and decades and decades) that it might be a good idea to swing the pendulum back to the greedy developers so that rents/prices become more affordable. Disclosure: I guess I'm sort of a greedy developer albeit at a tiny scale.
- rickydroll 1y ago
  Things are bad in the US for housing because we count on market forces to provide what's necessary. Market forces shut down development if housing prices drop. After all, why start a project if you have a chance of being underwater by the time you're done with it? see: https://clmarohn.substack.com/p/what-happens-when-housing-prices https://clmarohn.substack.com/p/what-happens-when-housing-pr... If you want affordable housing, it will have to be government-funded, allowing developers to continue making a profit while the government bears the loss. Another way of expressing it is the government pays for housing to be built at cost plus and then charges rent according to what people can afford, i.e., income and expense-based rent.
  - harmmonica 1y ago
    What you say is true to an extent, but I think you're underestimating a couple of things. First, some real estate developers enjoy very good margins, particularly those who purchase land, entitle the land and either build the improvements themselves or sell the land to someone who follows through with the construction. That is to say that even when prices/rents compress there tends to still be opportunity for developers (I'm not talking 2008-level price drops that are existential problems for the real estate market and the world at large). Also, when you cite "market forces" it suggests that the real estate market in the US is driven mostly by market forces, but it's highly regulated (zoning, building codes, etc.). As other commenters have pointed out, even in a declining market, if you removed some of the regulation you'd offset some of the drop in market prices thereby preserving the incentive for developers to build. Lastly, if you think we arrived where we are today because of market forces I think that's largely untrue. HCOL areas (seems like the entire country is turning into one of those!) have criminally under-built for decades and that hasn't been a market problem, but a regulatory problem. Now I'm not advocating for unlimited development so please don't read it that way, but the historical forces against building have been municipalities, on behalf of their politically-active residents, erecting countless impediments to development. If that were only true for a couple of years then we wouldn't have ended up where we are, but over decades the compounding effect of that reality is the single-biggest reason we're in the situation we're in. It is likewise going to take decades to address it so if the regulatory regime changes and stuff starts getting built and you still see rising prices that shouldn't be a surprise. Funny enough the more real estate developers going bankrupt the closer we'll be to affordable housing for all (ok, for "many" because all is likely never going to happen). Btw everything above assumes you actually believe that increased supply of housing (eventually!) decreases prices. I know you, ricky, don't believe that atm. Tons of people point to places like NYC as evidence that supply/demand doesn't work in desirable places, but, as Flavor Flav once said so well: don't believe the hype; even places like NYC have under-built for decades. Man I write long-winded comments on HN. This one is the worst by far, I think.
CalRobert 1y ago
"Greedy" developers.... because "make something and sell it for money" makes you greedy in any other line of business?
kyawzazaw 1y ago
Nashville just passed this. so did Austin. here's a relevant info with visualizations: https://secondegress.ca https://secondegress.ca

by larrik 1y ago

cjbarber 1y ago

> "Here's what people said:" before the actual list was super annoying. Updated now

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

"Greedy developers" is a signal someone doesn't know anything about real estate. It's up there with "late-stage capitalism" as a sure sign someone doesn't understand the subject matter.

larrik 1y ago
Well, mother-in-law's developer collapsed in the middle of building their development, and managed to empty the escrow accounts using forgery and fraud on the way out the door. That's not really the same scale as what we're talking about here, so much, though. Being from Connecticut, this case comes to mind as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London Where a developer planned some huge build, forced people out of their homes via eminent domain, and then never actually broke ground at all. These companies shut down once they hit some snag and then pop up somewhere else under a different name.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  You named two developments vs the entirety of the modern physical world that you interact with every day. Edit: also you misrepresented one of the examples. The developer did NOT use the power of eminent domain. The elected officials of the City of New London used eminent domain.

harmmonica 1y ago

Sorry to focus on the greedy developers comment, but one thing I'd ask you to consider is that sometimes you need some greedy developers to balance things out a bit. The US has gotten so bad at building housing supply to meet the demand that prices have obviously gotten out of whack. The past several years in Austin, TX, though, as an example, have shown that unshackling some greedy developers to come in and build is actually good for the masses because it leads to reduced rents/prices. That's not the entire story in Austin, but it is a major reason prices have come down. I feel like we've been out of balance for so long (decades and decades and decades) that it might be a good idea to swing the pendulum back to the greedy developers so that rents/prices become more affordable. Disclosure: I guess I'm sort of a greedy developer albeit at a tiny scale.

rickydroll 1y ago
Things are bad in the US for housing because we count on market forces to provide what's necessary. Market forces shut down development if housing prices drop. After all, why start a project if you have a chance of being underwater by the time you're done with it? see: https://clmarohn.substack.com/p/what-happens-when-housing-prices https://clmarohn.substack.com/p/what-happens-when-housing-pr... If you want affordable housing, it will have to be government-funded, allowing developers to continue making a profit while the government bears the loss. Another way of expressing it is the government pays for housing to be built at cost plus and then charges rent according to what people can afford, i.e., income and expense-based rent.
- harmmonica 1y ago
  What you say is true to an extent, but I think you're underestimating a couple of things. First, some real estate developers enjoy very good margins, particularly those who purchase land, entitle the land and either build the improvements themselves or sell the land to someone who follows through with the construction. That is to say that even when prices/rents compress there tends to still be opportunity for developers (I'm not talking 2008-level price drops that are existential problems for the real estate market and the world at large). Also, when you cite "market forces" it suggests that the real estate market in the US is driven mostly by market forces, but it's highly regulated (zoning, building codes, etc.). As other commenters have pointed out, even in a declining market, if you removed some of the regulation you'd offset some of the drop in market prices thereby preserving the incentive for developers to build. Lastly, if you think we arrived where we are today because of market forces I think that's largely untrue. HCOL areas (seems like the entire country is turning into one of those!) have criminally under-built for decades and that hasn't been a market problem, but a regulatory problem. Now I'm not advocating for unlimited development so please don't read it that way, but the historical forces against building have been municipalities, on behalf of their politically-active residents, erecting countless impediments to development. If that were only true for a couple of years then we wouldn't have ended up where we are, but over decades the compounding effect of that reality is the single-biggest reason we're in the situation we're in. It is likewise going to take decades to address it so if the regulatory regime changes and stuff starts getting built and you still see rising prices that shouldn't be a surprise. Funny enough the more real estate developers going bankrupt the closer we'll be to affordable housing for all (ok, for "many" because all is likely never going to happen). Btw everything above assumes you actually believe that increased supply of housing (eventually!) decreases prices. I know you, ricky, don't believe that atm. Tons of people point to places like NYC as evidence that supply/demand doesn't work in desirable places, but, as Flavor Flav once said so well: don't believe the hype; even places like NYC have under-built for decades. Man I write long-winded comments on HN. This one is the worst by far, I think.

CalRobert 1y ago

"Greedy" developers.... because "make something and sell it for money" makes you greedy in any other line of business?

kyawzazaw 1y ago

Nashville just passed this. so did Austin. here's a relevant info with visualizations: https://secondegress.ca https://secondegress.ca