
Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California - burlesona
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/7/24/approaching-peak-housing-dysfunction-in-california
======
nostrademons
> No neighborhood should be exempt from change.

> No neighborhood should be subjected to radical change.

Is there any dynamic evolutionary system that actually follows these rules?
The tech industry is famous for lumbering behemoths that are constitutionally
incapable of innovation and then get replaced wholesale by nimble startups.
National borders change all at once, in wars or revolutions, rather than
incrementally as demographics change. Human beings don't change much after
early adulthood; instead they make new humans who replace them when they die.
Evolution itself seems to have periods of equilibrium when resources are
abundant and nearly every individual survives, followed by abrupt speciation
when resources get tight, individuals die off, and populations get isolated
from one another.

The only positive example I can think of is democracy, which is specifically
_designed_ to enable gradual change so that radical change doesn't happen, and
yet still frequently gets party realignments, charismatic strongmen, and the
occasional revolution.

I worry that this philosophy sounds great precisely because it's not how the
world works. Human beings are really bad at noticing or reacting to gradual
change; it tends to pile up until it becomes too big to ignore, and then
rapidly reaches a tipping point and crisis where the newly strong force out
the weak. This is undesirable, but also seems largely unavoidable.

~~~
ketzo
I mean, if we're being cynical, you say the second so that people feel
comfortable with the first. If you can convince suburbanites that you won't
put up a skyscraper next door, you'll have an easier time putting up a 5-story
apartment building. Or so my thinking goes, anyway.

~~~
cgriswald
People in my neighborhood object to every change even if it doesn’t seem to
affect them. They’re mortified when a 5-story building (commercial OR
residential) is built downtown when we are ten minutes away and not on a major
traffic corridor.

~~~
casefields
That's because every time you give an inch they'll take a little bit more. So
you out up a huge front and the only thing that can be approved are small
nimble changes. Plus it's wildly beneficial economically to keep the status
quo when it comes to owning a home in the California.

~~~
cgriswald
> Plus it's wildly beneficial economically to keep the status quo when it
> comes to owning a home in the California.

Commercial development of the downtown space will only increase the value of
homes in my neighborhood.

------
opportune
I walked around downtown San Bruno recently and it's honestly pathetic how
this city is squandering their potential. Even on el camino real itself a lot
of the property is being wasted on auto repair shops and fast food places, 2-3
story buildings, etc. This place could be way, way better given its proximity
to the airport and SF.

~~~
CPLX
I mean, I don't know how to tell you guys, but from the perspective of an east
coaster, the _entire peninsula (including SF)_ looks like this. It feels like
some kind of parallel universe where nothing makes sense.

Like I hear about a housing crisis in SF but I go there and there are
supermarkets surrounded by parking lots in the middle of the city. There are
literal big-box stores like you'd see in the suburbs adjacent to the central
business district, like that Petco Safeway block near Mission Bay.

In the Embarcadero there are actual motor inns, crappy hotels with one story
raised 10 feet off the ground with parking spaces below them. Like _a whole
bunch of them_. You don't even see those in abandoned small towns any more.

You head to the beach and you go through mile after mile of outer sunset with
crappy little 2 story houses and residential streets _dominated by garage
doors_ which is like the most people-unfriendly building style known to man.

Like do people know that every little private one-car garage has no benefit on
a larger scale? The garage holds one car, and the curb cut prevents parking on
the street in front, for a net gain of zero parking spaces.

Yet _the entire city_ is dominated by garages at street level. And two story
buildings, and mile after mile of awful zero-architecture postwar commercial
properties.

Yes the painted ladies are pretty, don't bulldoze them. Landmark Lombard
street and some of the other charming blocks, Sure why not. But it's a global
commercial city willing to build 50+ story office towers, and unwilling to do
anything about the dozens of square miles of 1-2 story unredeemable
residential surrounding them.

It's _insane_.

~~~
i_am_proteus
There I was, thinking I was the only one.

It's _insane._ When I first got here from the east coast, I thought maybe
there was some reason involving earthquake codes. And then I learned.

I used to live in NYC, a city that's had its own difficulties adding new
housing, corruption in the permitting process, considering too many areas
"historic." But the Bay Area is something completely different. It seems that
everyone who already owns a single family home is strongly in favor of pulling
up the ladder.

Perhaps too much money is riding on the existing "market value" of homes here.
If zoning restrictions were relaxed, could house prices collapse? Proposition
13 can't be helping, either.

~~~
nostrademons
I moved here from Boston.

It honestly didn't seem all that insane to me, because Boston is crazier in
nearly every dimension. The peninsula at least has 3-lane boulevards with a
reasonable road hierarchy and traffic light timings. Boston has cowpaths
branching off in every direction, controlled by stop signs that can literally
back up for miles. The peninsula has block after block of Eichlers on 1/4 acre
lots. Boston has mid-rise row-houses on landfill in the Back Bay, quickly
trailing off to historic old houses on 1.5 acre lots 10 minutes outside of the
city. The peninsula refuses to let you put in an in-law unit or cut down a
redwood tree without going through an extensive permitting process. The Boston
area might _refuse to let you put in new window panes_ if you live in a
historic house (my computer teacher lived in one from the 1730s, and it still
had all the original glass - which back then was hand made and tended to flow
like putty - because it was considered a historic property and she couldn't
modify it). The peninsula is due for a natural disaster in the next 30 years.
In Boston, as my wife puts it, every winter is a natural disaster. BART has a
problem with homeless dudes and property crime. The Red Line has a problem
with trains losing the 3rd rail and running 20 minutes late. Caltrain
electrification is stuck in limbo. The Big Dig has ceiling tiles that fall
down and _kill people_.

Of course, the flip side of this is that Boston hasn't grown since 1950, and
is around the same size as its 1910 population. San Francisco will probably
meet a similar fate when the tech boom peters out.

~~~
MiroF
I'm also coming from Boston and this take is silly.

Housing prices in Boston aren't Bay bad or even close to it.

~~~
foobarian
I'm coming from the Boston _area_ because I can't afford to live in Boston or
Cambridge. But guess what? There are comfortably sized houses available
already under $400k 20 minutes out.

~~~
MiroF
Exactly. Inner Boston and SF are not dissimilar, but the real difference is
when you go outside the city. You can get a good house in Waltham (for
instance) for relatively cheap. The same isn't true today in East Bay at least
(and I don't know what other direction it would be true in).

------
btilly
I have suggested this before, and I'll suggest this again.

The whole problem could be solved if we gave people the choice of voting where
they work rather than where they live.

Currently every city wants all the businesses that they can get because
businesses generate lots of tax revenues. Cities do not want apartments
because that doesn't generate revenue, and locals object on the basis of
NIMBYism. But when everyone adds businesses and nobody adds homes, we get
horrible commutes.

With my proposed change, housing developments in cities that have major
businesses will get lots of support from people who work there and want
shorter commutes. And it seems reasonable to me that someone who spends their
waking hours in a city and wants to live there should get the opportunity to
have political power there.

This would therefore undo the political log jam. And once you start letting
people live close to where they work, commutes go down, traffic gets better,
and everyone winds up happier.

~~~
markbnj
> Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue

The property owners still pay tax on it don't they? I'm sure it is less
lucrative per square foot than commercial development, but I assume it is
still better than the revenue from the closed furniture store and parking lot,
and after all you need people to patronize businesses.

~~~
i_am_proteus
Perhaps it's something to do with how California has lower property taxes
(partially due to Prop. 13) and higher income taxes-- but those income taxes
go to Sacramento, not to municipalities.

In other parts of the country, municipal treasuries grow as volume and prices
of residential units grow.

~~~
canuelaborate
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "those income taxes go to Scaramento"? I
mean the state has to coordinate the money it collects, but doesn't it use
that money for state-wide projects like roads, dams, and other infrastructure?
I live in Los Angeles and pay CA income tax. I'm perfectly fine with the state
using some of that money outside of Los Angeles. I often travel outside of Los
Angeles, so I'm getting use out of whatever they make with it (assuming it's
not just put into politicians' pockets). What is Sacramento doing with the
income tax revenue that you don't like?

~~~
i_am_proteus
The difference between paying $9000 to Sacramento and $1000 to LA or paying
$5000 to Sacramento and $5000 to LA.

In the latter system, the local government gets direct control over the
spending, as opposed to needing to lobby the state government for funds for
road improvements, schools, etc.

For instance, in California, the majority of K-12 funding comes from
Sacramento. In most of the rest of the country, the majority of K-12 funding
comes from local, largely property, taxes-- exceptions being low-performing
schools targeted for improvement with state funds.

------
matthewowen
"Two others (out of five) had recused themselves because they own property
within 1000 feet of the proposed project, and those recusals apparently
counted as "no" votes."

I wonder: did they just not know the rules? Or was this a cowardly way to vote
no without _actually_ voting no: it seems like if you really wanted to recuse
in this situation, you just agree to do paired voting, one no and one yes.

~~~
asr
Yes, this seems like a critical part of the story. I take it the actual vote
was 2-1 in favor of the permit, but you need at least 3 votes to pass
something in San Bruno, no matter what? If so, the city council's rules don't
deal appropriately with recusal and those should be changed ASAP.

At the same time, whether or not this project succeeded or failed, the larger
story about how hard it is to build housing remains fundamentally true (and
broken).

~~~
nradov
Every city council has quorum rules for votes. What exactly are you proposing
to change?

~~~
asr
Quorum rules are to make sure you're not holding a sneaky midnight vote with
two councilors asleep. Councilors who are present but recused should count
toward a quorum.

You might still have a rule that at least two votes are required to pass
something (to prevent a 1-0 vote with four recusals). But requiring at least
thee votes on a five-member council is requiring an outright majority, which
means a recusal is the same as a no vote. That seems unfair.

------
burlesona
I shared this because it's the best concise summary of many things that are
going wrong with housing in the bay area that I've read in a while.

I'm on the Strong Towns board (though I didn't write the article). Happy to
answer questions if anyone has them.

~~~
aeternus
Is housing "going wrong" simply because it is expensive? Maybe it is overall a
good thing that tech companies are now expanding into cities outside the bay
area due to high housing costs.

At least housing prices are transparent to those thinking about moving in to
the bay area, allowing them to make an informed decision. High traffic,
insufficient public transit capacity, and over-capacity public services are
less transparent. If we build more housing, do we just push problems
elsewhere?

How do we determine the optimal amount of new housing?

~~~
mktmkr
Here's an idea we can adopt from literally every other aspect of American
society: let the market work. We venerate the free market in all matters
except housing, where we've erected a complex system of legal protections for
incumbent landlords. The solution to high housing prices is more supply but it
is illegal to build housing almost anywhere in the state of California. In SF
it is illegal to build a duplex on 90% of the lots. Why? That just exists to
enrich incumbents.

~~~
DrScump

      it is illegal to build housing almost anywhere in the state of California.
    

No, it is _legal_ almost everywhere without adjacent neighbors. Most land is
unincorporated anyway.

------
Karrot_Kream
I've noticed an increasing trend in West Coast cities where people complain
that there's "just too many people". "Tell them to move elsewhere, we're
full". It's as if the lessons of Malthusian limits were lost on us. For
humanity to continue growing as a species we have to become more efficient
with land use.

~~~
esotericn
> For humanity to continue growing as a species

I'm pretty young.

Since my birth, the population has expanded by over 40%, and we've increased
global temperature by approximately 1 degree Celsius.

The inevitable conclusion of forever-growth is, indeed, that everyone piles in
to microscopic communal living spaces, that everything becomes factory farmed,
that everything has to be as efficient as possible because we'll be (already
are to a large extent) forced into doing it.

We can't go on like this.

~~~
tmh79
"We can't go on like this."

There is a huge HUGE difference between "you must own 1/3 of an acre of land
to live within an hour commute of your job" and "microscopic communal living
spaces", if you haven't looked at a map recently we are much much closer to
the prior than the latter.

~~~
esotericn
Mmm. I live in the UK.

London is somewhere in-between; so are most of our towns and cities, really.

Tons of semi-detached or terraced homes, well served by public transport,
which provide a decent balance.

We still can't just increase the population in those commutable areas without
bound though.

------
dmode
I am a huge housing advocate who lives in the Bay Area, but I feel like the
only pro housing people I meet are online. All my neighbors turn NIMBY as soon
as they buy their home

~~~
6gvONxR4sf7o
That's why some people who don't agree with the YIMBYs deride them as Yes In
_Your_ Back Yard.

------
jwp23
One of the issues is that we, in the US, don't look at other successful cities
or countries and consider implementing their solutions. Then in California, we
don't look at other cities or states within the US who have solved similar
problems. Tokyo has rational zoning rules that has lead to affordable housing
in a growing metropolis. This blog post [https://devonzuegel.com/post/north-
american-vs-japanese-zoni...](https://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-
japanese-zoning) describes the differences in Japanese zoning versus North
American zoning.

------
bwb
I'd love to move to CA, but I can't do the housing madness. Just insanity and
I don't like that they are hurting other people and their ability to give
their kids a better life by pulling up the ladder behind them. My city isn't
far behind and it disgusts me. I'd love to see my entire neighborhood rezoned
to 4 to 5 stories and get more people in here for the economic boom.

------
6gvONxR4sf7o
Are there policies anywhere that compensate people for the externalities
brought by change? Like, if Alice buys a sunny place with a great view of wide
open sky and a park, then Bob buys the places around her, bulldozes the park,
and builds 20 story buildings, Alice is now in the dark looking at concrete 10
feet away. It objectively makes Alice's situation worse. Are there any
frameworks that compensate Alice for the worsening of her situation?

I could imagine something like making developers pay for blocking
views/sky/sun, or for creating noise, or making them pay for the change their
development causes in the market value of others' properties. Not exactly
that, but something along those lines. I'd bet it could bring some NIMBYs
around. They'd no longer lose out when beneficial change happens.

~~~
CydeWeys
You don't own the view. It's unrealistic to expect that owning a single parcel
of land would grant you broad latitude to stop projects anywhere within sight.

If you want a guaranteed good view, go buy a big plot of land way out in the
middle of nowhere. You have no right to it in a city; other people's right to
have housing is way more important.

~~~
6gvONxR4sf7o
Yes, of course in this situation Alice doesn't own the view. But she _is_ made
worse off by Bob's developments. I really hope we can agree that Alice's
situation is being made worse in a real way here. Further, pre-Bob, the city
is mostly full of Alices, so if you want them to not vote against Bob's
development, like in OP's article, you might want to align Alice's and Bob's
incentives. It's pragmatic.

It also happens to have the nice property of not making Alice worse off when
we improve things for everyone else, which morally feels nice.

Either way, the question isn't about the ethics or pragmatics. It's whether
this has been tried anywhere.

~~~
Atheros
What about in the opposite direction? What if I build something that makes the
neighborhood nicer (like buying a burned out building and replacing it with
one that is beautiful and matches its neighbors). It seems like the neighbors
should pay me their increased home value, right? If Nancy plants flowers, you
have to pay her. It's only fair. It's also ludicrous. Your idea is
unimplementable.

It would be simpler if everyone just stopped viewing their home as an
investment. The meme that 'homes are investments' is a very recent invention.
They not investments; they're depreciating assets.

~~~
6gvONxR4sf7o
My perspective is that it's not about the investment. It's about wanting to
keep the quality of life you bought into. The investment side only comes in
when the large building next to you decreases your quality of life, so you
want to sell, which you otherwise wouldn't have wanted to do.

I'd totally buy into a system that incentivizes the positives too. If I'm
paying for the amount it affects me by, sure. That's why I pay my taxes. On
the other hand, ratchet-like systems by which things can't get worse than they
started seem fair too. It's okay to be asymmetric.

Specifically, the example that comes to mind as a fair reason to be pissed (or
vote against development/rezoning) is changing something like this:

[https://ssl.cdn-
redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/398/486398_44_2....](https://ssl.cdn-
redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/398/486398_44_2.jpg)

to something like this:

[https://ssl.cdn-
redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/440/486440_28_0....](https://ssl.cdn-
redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/440/486440_28_0.jpg)

------
throwawaysea
It's not peak housing dysfunction, but rather peak entitlement. Why is it
important to accommodate people who might want to live in or move to an area
despite local incumbents' wishes to not have their neighborhood change? Does
everyone have the right to live anywhere they want to live without having to
pay the necessary price to be there? For example, does everyone have a right
to expect a residence on a Hawaii beachfront? And if not, why is it reasonable
to portray a city or state as somehow lacking because it serves existing
constituents?

It makes sense that the Bay area would be priced high given its tremendous
desirability (which may be tapering off now). If people are willing to work
there for low wages, then that is their choice - they have opted into a
tradeoff they are OK with, and they/others should not demonize those who were
already there and want to preserve their culture/way of life/standards of
living. There are numerous affordable places to live in the US that are not
[New York, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.] - you may not have every big city
amenity you want, or maybe even be able to do the exact job you want - but
such compromises are also just a regular part of life, aren't they?

To me the reframing of this issue as a policy problem, or a rich versus poor
thing, or through use of pejoratives like "NIMBY" serves to distract from the
plain truth, which is simply that people are acting in their own self-
interests. And yes, this includes the folks who believe they have an
unalienable right to live in the Bay area and demand that local governance be
replaced with top-down forceful governance (overriding local zoning policy).
And the reality is proposals like the one around the missing middle will not
solve the underlying issue - it just shifts the timeline around a bit until
population growth brings us back to the same point anyways.

~~~
opportune
>and they/others should not demonize those who were already there and want to
preserve their culture/way of life/standards of living.

This has a limit, namely, that we who move in are going to vote to change
things, and the only way bay area property owners can prevent that is to not
get rich off their property by selling or renting it at sky-high prices to new
residents. To put their money where their mouth is and not change things, bay
area residents need to not be getting rich off the density that they are
nominally trying to fight. Otherwise it's just delaying a lost cause -
population growth, and a shift in demographics from owners to renters, will
inevitably happen barring some big tech recession. Once there are enough
renters voting in municipal elections, change will come

~~~
rsync
"This has a limit, namely, that we who move in are going to vote to change
things, and the only way bay area property owners can prevent that is to not
get rich off their property by selling or renting it at sky-high prices to new
residents."

This argument the two of you are engaged in would be more interesting and
relevant, I think, if there were not a _literal 50% off sale_ every 7-10 years
in the bay area.

The busts will continue to come and the more you think "it's different this
time" the closer we are to one. Conversely, I'll bet I could pick up print
publications in the alternative press from the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s wherein
the same lamentations and accusations are leveled during the run-up to each
peak.

I quote the lead article from the OP:

"... helplessness pervades many of my conversations with friends in the San
Francisco Bay Area, _where I lived for seven years_ ..."

------
tarr11
Would a “technology” answer be to make telepresence technology better and
invest in higher bandwidth infrastructure?

If we could have high resolution video, audio and even VR for business, would
people be required to be colocated as often?

That way people could live wherever they want.

~~~
dredmorbius
Paradoxically, advances in transport and comms tech seem to increase rather
than decrease hub concentration. Greater _friction_ and more need for local
presence might reverse the trend.

------
cryptozeus
If you notice how new york and surrounding area is supported by very good
transportation. West coast does not have that and on top of that there are no
huge building being built outside sf. I wonder if this is due to earthquakes.
Either way I think this issues and mixed with tech job demand is going to push
remote culture more and more.

~~~
umvi
> I wonder if this is due to earthquakes.

Could be, but Japan has lots of earthquakes too, and they don't seem to mind
building huge/tall buildings.

------
andrewprock
There is simply no demand from municipalities for more housing. The logical
consequence of Proposition 13 is that housing becomes a liability for
governments, instead of an asset. Therefore, they forego developing new
liabilities, and instead develop new assets, commercial property use.

------
jkking
This article approaches the issue from the preconception that building housing
is the best, obvious and inevitable decision for Bay Area communities. Because
of this, any obstacles to it must be due either to a) fossilized regulations
from a former age; or b) greed and entitlement.

As to a), I find that the democratic process is actually very engaged in
making housing decisions. As a resident of Alameda, we are constantly getting
new housing approved, because our voting populace happens to support it. In
other towns, maybe that's not the case. But the laws and regulations that
protect against development are not necessarily byproducts from a former age
that are no longer applicable, but in fact still representative of the will of
the people. And in any case, the will of the people can change them!

As to b), I think there are great reasons why someone would be against
development other than greed and entitlement. If rich and powerful interests
(such as Big Tech) threaten to change your way of life, don't you have the
right as an American to vote your conscience, even if it goes against the
tides of change? Or are we only allowed to vote in a way that would ultimately
favor Big Tech in some way? People that think in this way remind me of the
current situation in Hong Kong - where it's a "democracy," but you're only
allowed to vote for the "approved" candidates. In other words, no democracy at
all.

An objection has been raised that people who don't like the tech industry
being here can move somewhere else. Well, the same is true for the tech
industry itself. In fact, it appears that Big Tech is playing a game of
chicken, and banks on the fact that the Bay Area towns will blink first. We
have seen this before, where Uber deliberately broke the law by running a
commercial car service without paying for the required licenses and permits.
Then, they sicced their lawyers on the towns that tried to stop them until
people got so enamored of the service they couldn't imagine life without it,
and the political will was decidedly in their favor. All in the name of
"disruption."

I have no issue ascribing legitimate motives to those who wish not to be
"disrupted," and refuse to accept that as an inevitability. What would the
answer be to a big corporation belching toxic fumes into the atmosphere?
"Well, that's just the march of progress, we all need to adapt?" I didn't
think so. Instead, we will continue to put these things to a vote (or fight
for our right to do so where we wrongfully can't). That's how we make
decisions in America.

------
Animats
It's being overdone. A solid wall of railroad flats (cheezy "luxury" condos)
is going up for miles along the Caltrain tracks. Those wooden multistory
buildings are the slums of tomorrow.

It's about time for the next Bay Area recession. Some of those buildings will
never be fully occupied. Remember 2008? 2001?

~~~
cylinder
Isn't that where you'd _want_ flats? Nobody wants a SFH next to tracks.
Certain types of people (I won't generalise) always seem to want to call
apartment buildings "future slums." This almost never materialises. Is it a
racial thing for you?

~~~
MiroF
> is it a racial thing

I mean I've encountered this enough that I know the answer now: obviously.

You won't ever get them to admit it though

