5 ms·

You use the phrase "trivially fix". If your definition of "trivially" means several decades with the investment of billions of dollars, then perhaps. There ar

You use the phrase "trivially fix". If your definition of "trivially" means several decades with the investment of billions of dollars, then perhaps. There are no "trivial fixes" in city infrastructure. Re-zoning only works if there are developers who want to redevelop the land. For existing neighborhoods this means buying dozens of SFH from people who don't want to move. This drives the price of any development up making it unprofitable in most cases. I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously.

scoofy 8mo ago
When I say "trivially fix" I mean that, if the City/State wanted to fix the problem, they could. >Re-zoning only works if there are developers who want to redevelop the land. Developers very obviously want to redevelop the vast majority of LA. The marginal cost of a housing unit is vastly higher than the cost of building that unit. To raise long-term tax revenues, LA could not just legalize redevelopment. They could actually incentivize it. >For existing neighborhoods this means buying dozens of SFH from people who don't want to move. The people living in SFH don't want to move exactly because they're not generating enough tax revenue to keep the city afloat (mostly due to Prop 13). Eventually the city will start having to raise taxes very dramatically or declare bankruptcy. That's the entire message from Strong Towns. The more we put it off, the bigger the impact will be. When your city is effectively long-run insolvent, but you have the ability to change that even if it's politically unpopular (and LA does), then it's "trivially" doable, it's just that people don't want to. That's not the case in many other cities. In other cities demand isn't there. People will just leave when taxes go up, and the town will declare bankruptcy. At that point, they will effectively lose most of their population, or people will just live without things like clean water. An example of this happening is Jackson Mississippi, where the water system failed, and the city didn't have the money to fix it. The ultimate solution was just a federal bailout, which is not sustainable if these types of crises become endemic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson,_Mississippi_water_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson,_Mississippi_water_cri...
- amluto 8mo ago
  > The marginal cost of a housing unit is vastly higher than the cost of building that unit. The cost of building a housing unit is rather out of control in LA right now, due to a number of factors. Some of those factors involve permitting, but some involve complexities of complying with building regulation, and there is also insufficient availability of contractors and insufficient availability of labor.
  - scoofy 8mo ago
    The demand is there: https://la.urbanize.city/post/plan-skyline-altering-tower-above-blocs-garage-moves-forward https://la.urbanize.city/post/plan-skyline-altering-tower-ab... The point is that the vast majority of budgetary issues in LA could be solved by just legalizing, and streamlining the production of something as simple as three-story row housing like the kind that's normal in San Francisco (which has a surprisingly good long-term outlook despite their current budget woes). It's not rocket science here. If you make it easy to build housing, the industry grow to meet demand. If you make it difficult, it will be dominated by a handful of major players who can navigate the process.
    - amluto 8mo ago
      I recently reviewed a bid from a not-particularly-fancy contractor for nearly $1M to build ~1200 sq ft in an empty lot in Los Angeles. This isn’t just a planning permit probem.
      - Spooky23 8mo ago
        Even in cheaper areas without earthquake or hurricane construction codes, minimum $/ft is like $250 (for lowest quality components) and realistically more like $400. Inflation for materials and labor makes any build incredibly expensive.
      - DANmode 8mo ago
        Did you pay it?
prawn 8mo ago
In Australia, as zoning changes, developers and owners alike tend to take advantage. If a house was being rented out, they might rebuild as 2-4 homes and rent those out. Otherwise, an owner might rebuild as two semi-detached homes, live in one and sell/rent the second to finance the build. If it is owned by someone who prefers to keep what they have, the next generation might not feel the same. Where there are opportunities, developers (and owners) will find them.
lelandbatey 8mo ago
If you change the zoning, people will build to take advantage of that more flexible zoning. I own land in the city, I'd absolutely pursue the financing and coordinate the redevelopment of that land if: - I could make more money - if the zoning allowed it. As it is right now, it'd be profitable, but the zoning isn't there for it.
array_key_first 8mo ago
It's trivial in the sense that it's easier than not doing nothing, because rather than create problems what we've actually done is systematically installed impediments to solutions. We only need to remove impediments, and the solution finds itself. Obviously that's very simplified, but the point is we've built this Tower of Babylon that exists around property value that is completely optional and just makes everything harder.
wooger 8mo ago
>For existing neighborhoods this means buying dozens of SFH from people who don't want to move. This is closely coupled to the whole 'grandfathered in to very low property taxes from 50 years ago' problem.

scoofy 8mo ago

When I say "trivially fix" I mean that, if the City/State wanted to fix the problem, they could. >Re-zoning only works if there are developers who want to redevelop the land. Developers very obviously want to redevelop the vast majority of LA. The marginal cost of a housing unit is vastly higher than the cost of building that unit. To raise long-term tax revenues, LA could not just legalize redevelopment. They could actually incentivize it. >For existing neighborhoods this means buying dozens of SFH from people who don't want to move. The people living in SFH don't want to move exactly because they're not generating enough tax revenue to keep the city afloat (mostly due to Prop 13). Eventually the city will start having to raise taxes very dramatically or declare bankruptcy. That's the entire message from Strong Towns. The more we put it off, the bigger the impact will be. When your city is effectively long-run insolvent, but you have the ability to change that even if it's politically unpopular (and LA does), then it's "trivially" doable, it's just that people don't want to. That's not the case in many other cities. In other cities demand isn't there. People will just leave when taxes go up, and the town will declare bankruptcy. At that point, they will effectively lose most of their population, or people will just live without things like clean water. An example of this happening is Jackson Mississippi, where the water system failed, and the city didn't have the money to fix it. The ultimate solution was just a federal bailout, which is not sustainable if these types of crises become endemic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson,_Mississippi_water_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson,_Mississippi_water_cri...

amluto 8mo ago
> The marginal cost of a housing unit is vastly higher than the cost of building that unit. The cost of building a housing unit is rather out of control in LA right now, due to a number of factors. Some of those factors involve permitting, but some involve complexities of complying with building regulation, and there is also insufficient availability of contractors and insufficient availability of labor.
- scoofy 8mo ago
  The demand is there: https://la.urbanize.city/post/plan-skyline-altering-tower-above-blocs-garage-moves-forward https://la.urbanize.city/post/plan-skyline-altering-tower-ab... The point is that the vast majority of budgetary issues in LA could be solved by just legalizing, and streamlining the production of something as simple as three-story row housing like the kind that's normal in San Francisco (which has a surprisingly good long-term outlook despite their current budget woes). It's not rocket science here. If you make it easy to build housing, the industry grow to meet demand. If you make it difficult, it will be dominated by a handful of major players who can navigate the process.
  - amluto 8mo ago
    I recently reviewed a bid from a not-particularly-fancy contractor for nearly $1M to build ~1200 sq ft in an empty lot in Los Angeles. This isn’t just a planning permit probem.
    - Spooky23 8mo ago
      Even in cheaper areas without earthquake or hurricane construction codes, minimum $/ft is like $250 (for lowest quality components) and realistically more like $400. Inflation for materials and labor makes any build incredibly expensive.
    - DANmode 8mo ago
      Did you pay it?

prawn 8mo ago

In Australia, as zoning changes, developers and owners alike tend to take advantage. If a house was being rented out, they might rebuild as 2-4 homes and rent those out. Otherwise, an owner might rebuild as two semi-detached homes, live in one and sell/rent the second to finance the build. If it is owned by someone who prefers to keep what they have, the next generation might not feel the same. Where there are opportunities, developers (and owners) will find them.

lelandbatey 8mo ago

If you change the zoning, people will build to take advantage of that more flexible zoning. I own land in the city, I'd absolutely pursue the financing and coordinate the redevelopment of that land if: - I could make more money - if the zoning allowed it. As it is right now, it'd be profitable, but the zoning isn't there for it.

array_key_first 8mo ago

It's trivial in the sense that it's easier than not doing nothing, because rather than create problems what we've actually done is systematically installed impediments to solutions. We only need to remove impediments, and the solution finds itself. Obviously that's very simplified, but the point is we've built this Tower of Babylon that exists around property value that is completely optional and just makes everything harder.

wooger 8mo ago

>For existing neighborhoods this means buying dozens of SFH from people who don't want to move. This is closely coupled to the whole 'grandfathered in to very low property taxes from 50 years ago' problem.