
Everyone in California wants to be the last new resident in their neighborhood - fludlight
http://ochousingnews.com/blog/everyone-wants-to-be-the-last-new-resident-in-the-neighborhood/
======
rwhitman
The thing that drives me bonkers about OC and most California suburbs is the
lack of town centers.

On the East Coast home buyers have started to discover that all these
previously neglected walkable little colonial & 19th century towns and denser
suburbs, often adjacent to rail lines, have a lot of value. The smarter
municipalities have been taking the hint and zoning in denser development to
grow out the town center naturally as it was intended. The east coast can
start to regrow a lot of the character that was lost in the 20th century tract
housing boom, and begin to resemble the old world in that way.

On the West Coast, most of the small suburban cities never had a town center
to begin with. They were designed by real estate developers using standardized
high-profit low-density building plans, entirely focused on cars over walking
anywhere. (God forbid you live somewhere that you can walk to buy groceries!)

So you end up with these awkward community layouts where there are zero denser
centers to grow out of naturally and permanently zoned that way. Nobody wants
to take the plunge in having their house re-zoned and experiment with the
costly home investment they're sitting on. Mixed use is still a dirty word. So
no change occurs.

All that seems to be getting done lately is locking down neighborhood zoning
and building fancier and fancier shopping centers. Something in this is going
to change eventually, but unless people voluntarily bulldoze their houses to
make room for new town plans, I can't imagine what form it will take.

~~~
Mz
_On the West Coast, most of the small suburban cities never had a town center
to begin with. They were designed by real estate developers using standardized
high-profit low-density building plans, entirely focused on cars over walking
anywhere._

I don't know what you are talking about. I don't believe this to be true of
California generally. It is somewhat true of the LA area, but it was always
true of LA, before the cult of the car became a thing. In the case of the LA
area, it was not possible to develop it without developing large tracts of
land in one go because of the cost of bringing infrastructure to the desert.
However, when it began, there were trolleys and the like and you could
comfortably live without a car. You just used the trolley or other public
transit.

Also, the San Francisco Bay Area is one of the few places in the US with
population density comparable to parts of Europe. So it has relatively good
public transit for the US.

Yes, a lot of America has made it essentially against the rules to create the
kind of walkable cities that we once had. The New Urbanism movement was all
about trying to find a way to recreate that in spite of the current zoning and
legal climate that has whored out development to the cult of the car.

I don't know how to fix it, but I feel like you really don't know the history
here that you are badmouthing. It is more complicated than that.

~~~
TheOneTrueKyle
You don't need to know the history to be frustrated with Californian
infrastructure.

Been living in southern California for most of my life and have hated most of
it. I can't go anywhere without a car. The public transportation is terrible
and I have to travel 3 miles for a fucking grocery store. This isn't just
southern California and the LA area, but most of California from what I
experienced. I'm excited for the day that I can leave, but I have no idea when
that will be...

~~~
Mz
No, of course not. You don't need to know the history of anything at all to be
frustrated with it or hate it. But being frustrated with it doesn't make
inaccurate blanket statements about the history of the place more accurate. I
was not arguing with your right to be frustrated. I was just pointing out that
some of your blanket statements were not accurate. Even if it doesn't benefit
you personally, I hope it benefits someone.

Good luck getting out.

------
xenadu02
Almost none of the people currently living in SF will get to see their
grandkids. Statistics tell us the vast majority of their children will be
forced to move away; even if you have a good career ahead of you and in theory
would be able to afford to buy in the bay area, that's typically later in your
career.

Are you really going to live with your parents after you've been married for a
year and have two kids? (Yes I know some people will but the vast majority
won't).

~~~
taurath
This pretty much matches my experience with friends who now in their 20s grew
up in the bay. Most are in Seattle, Sacramento, Portland, or other more
affordable places. The ones who couldn't/didn't finish college or get into
tech live elsewhere.

I have a friend who is coming up on 28, having just moved from his parents
house in Los Gatos a year ago. He moved into the slums with 3 roommates,
paying around 60% of what his parents pay for their mortgage for his share of
rent. He managed to find a job in tech which is how he can afford the place.
Basically you move out of a mansion and into a ghetto, stay under your
parents, or move away.

I'm up in Seattle desperately trying to save money for a down payment faster
than housing prices are going up - if I wait a year it'll be an extra 30-50k
for the same property. But if I overextend to try to buy a place and the
market crashes I'm completely SOL. Its very difficult to make any long-term
decisions or enter the housing market.

But still, if you're not in it, you're giving up a lot of your future buying
power. Friends of mine managed to buy a very very cheap place in the bay and
lived there for a few years, and used the equity to buy a much nicer place in
the Seattle area. No idea really what to do - I feel like the market is
totally capping out at some point and isn't sustainable - I have to place a
bet whether it will rise continuously or crash and if I get it wrong I'm up
shit creek.

~~~
jseliger
_I 'm up in Seattle desperately trying to save money for a down payment faster
than housing prices are going up - if I wait a year it'll be an extra 30-50k
for the same property. But if I overextend to try to buy a place and the
market crashes I'm completely SOL. Its very difficult to make any long-term
decisions or enter the housing market._

This is why so many people move to Texas:
[http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/17/10-reasons-texas-is-our-
fut...](http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/17/10-reasons-texas-is-our-future/).
Most years, three to six of the fastest growing counties are in Texas. Texas's
biggest cities have relatively free land-use laws, so that as demand rises new
housing gets built and, in city centers, denser housing gets built.

This dynamic has been going on for a while:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-o...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-
of-two-town-houses/306334/):

 _In 2000, my husband and I moved out of our mid-1970s three-bedroom town
house in Los Angeles and into a brand-new three-bedroom town house in Uptown
Dallas. At the time, the two were worth about the same, but the Dallas place
was 1,000 square feet bigger. We’ve moved back to L.A., and we’re glad we kept
our old house. Over the past seven years, its value has roughly doubled. By
contrast, we sold our Dallas place for $6,500 less than we paid for it._

 _It’s not that we bought into a declining Dallas neighborhood: Uptown is one
of the hottest in the city, with block upon block of new construction. But the
supply of housing in Dallas is elastic. When demand increases, because of
growing population or rising incomes, so does the amount of housing; prices
stay roughly the same. That’s true not only in the outlying suburbs, but also
in old neighborhoods like ours, where dense clusters of town houses and
multistory apartment buildings are replacing two-story fourplexes and single-
family homes. It’s easy to build new housing in Dallas._

 _Not so in Los Angeles. There, in-creased demand generates little new supply.
Even within zoning rules, it’s hard to get permission to build. When a local
developer bought three small 1920s duplexes on our block, planning to replace
them with a big condo building, neighbors campaigned to stop the proj­ect. The
city declared the charming but architecturally undistinguished buildings
historic landmarks, blocking demolition for a year. The developer gave up,
leaving the neighborhood’s landscape—and its housing supply—unchanged. In Los
Angeles, when demand for housing increases, prices rise._

Seattle has been better about expanding housing supply than most of CA, but
it's not nearly as good as Texas cities.

~~~
taurath
Expanded housing supply to me just means sprawl unfortunately. I do agree that
Seattle/CA should be building way faster on existing land and upzoning. Its
gonna take them 20+ years to put a light rail in, which to my mind is pretty
nuts.

------
carsongross
There is a perfectly valid reason for this: overdevelopment, particularly in
the Californian style of "chew up green space for tract homes", sucks.

There was a time when new development was viewed as a good thing. We built
high quality buildings and established new towns. Now we chew up land to
produce this:

[http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3264/2643280748_7799215dc3.jp...](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3264/2643280748_7799215dc3.jpg?v=0)

What human can look at that, even if they are forced by circumstances to live
in it, and not want to hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats?

~~~
briffle
Many places (especially in Silicon valley) restrict the height of buildings,
and the number of apartments, etc. When you can't build up, you have to build
out.

~~~
cbhl
But you can build a community where the houses aren't all identical to each
other. With cul-de-sacs and winding roads and trees lining the street, and
little boxes every couple of feet for FTTN or FTTP internet, and wide
sidewalks where kids feel comfortable walking to school.

~~~
briffle
Very true.. And they do build, but they cost more.. LOTS more.. you can build
a neighborhood of 500 homes with 5 plans, and a few tweaks here and there
(maybe put the garage on the other side on some houses based on plan A). For a
developer, you can now order 100 of each type of front door, X number of
truckloads of timber, roofing shingles, can lights, etc. that is known and
planned ahead of time. Each bit of customization adds time to plan and build,
and special orders that cost more.

------
pascalxus
And it's not just limited to SF. You can go out to Tracy or Fairfield where
there's miles and miles of space in every direction and yet, you still see the
houses piled on top of each other with less than 5 feet in between each house,
all because the greedy government and it's citizens won't allocate more space
for residential areas. It's just crazy. Somehow, these democratically
controlled areas just feel that everything (traffic, fishes, insects, a river,
etc) is more important than basic human needs (shelter). They need to start
putting basic human needs first, above all the other petty stuff.

~~~
rspeer
This misses the mark from my point of view. Green space is good. Density is
good. Density is how you make walkable neighborhoods.

You're advocating for addressing the need for housing in the form of sprawl.
Communities need to build, but that's the wrong direction to build in.

~~~
Gibbon1
The problem with low density housing is you then need to drive a long way to
get to someplace that isn't just more tract-housing.

I saw this a few years ago, what's interesting is the high variation in
density, from 4 units per acre to over 300. A density variation of 75 to 1.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUvR9QNAzvc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUvR9QNAzvc)

------
pjdemers
Because of prop 13, each new house costs the EXISTING homeowners money. That's
because the taxes on the new house will never pay for the additional public
infrastructure (roads, schools, public safety, etc) to support its residents.
So, at some point, there will be "parcel taxes" for a new wing on the school,
a new library, and a new fire house, and then "sales surtaxes" for a new
overpass, a Bart extension, etc ...... In San Mateo county, this is where most
of the opposition comes from.

~~~
bufordsharkley
Prop 13 favors current homeowners at the expense of future homeowners. This
NIMBY-written FAQ[0] exposes the structural unfairness pretty well.

And yes, property taxes are an ideal way to pay for local infrastructure, and
California is suffering the consequences of defunding this.

[0] [http://www.hjta.org/propositions/proposition-13/what-do-
you-...](http://www.hjta.org/propositions/proposition-13/what-do-you-tell-new-
neighbor-about-proposition-13/)

~~~
Gibbon1
I tend to think that cost of a house is the carrying costs, mortgages,
interest, maintenance, taxes. In a built up area, carrying costs are
determined by what the local economy will support.

Reducing property taxes just drives up the price and thus mortgage payments.
Difference is property taxes tend to pay for local services and infrastructure
that increase the real value of a home. Where mortgage and interest paid flee
to places elsewhere.

------
kazinator
There is no hypocrisy at all. If residents [0, N-1], resident N, and residents
[N+1, ∞) are all distinct sets of residents. I don't have to apply the same
rules and standards to these sets.

Is it "hypocrisy" or a "double standard" if a train car is full and no more
people can get on? Surely, a different rule or standard is being applied to
the people already on it and to the ones on the platform, right? No; the
principle is that the N people already on got the first "dibs" at the
resource, making it unavailable for the N+1-th person, too bad.

When you move somewhere, though you are yourself contributing to the traffic
and density, the fact is that in that moment it is as quiet as it will be.

It's perfectly human, after discovering something great, not to want to
attract others there. If you find a great camping spot in the woods or
whatever, you just keep your mouth shut, otherwise it will be spoiled by every
tom, dick and harry who will trample everything and leave garbage and so on.

I know of a good bakery and a few restaurants. I never recommend them to
anyone, because they will just get more business and get all uppity and raise
their prices and lower their quality.

------
utternerd
As a resident of Irvine there are many aspects at play here, and this is an
over-simplification. Though I do agree with the underlying author's feeling;
NIMBYs are annoying, and illogical.

I do however take great offense to being referred to as a xenophobe simply
because of where I live, that's asinine.

~~~
hkmurakami
Well IMO NIMBYism is perfectly logical and aligned with the residents' self
interests.

But they are often hypocritical with their other positions.

------
pfarnsworth
No one wants to spend a great deal of money for a house and then have some
changes come in that sees the price of it drop. This isn't just California,
it's everywhere around the world, it's simply human nature.

------
CaptSpify
Not exclusive to CA! This happens everywhere

~~~
hkmurakami
I specifically recall Google's proposed Boulder Campus expansion eliciting
similar sentiment from current residents.

~~~
davidw
A subset of people in Boulder are convinced that the problem is not housing,
but "too many jobs". I wish I could send them to spend a year in Greece or
Southern Italy or some other such place that is blissfully free of those awful
jobs.

~~~
hkmurakami
Interesting... I've heard "It's not the lack of jobs that's the problem, it's
the lack of demand. We're out of demand." before, but didn't think I'd ever
hear "we have too many jobs"...

~~~
davidw
[http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-
opinions/ci_28237442/sally-...](http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-
opinions/ci_28237442/sally-schneider-how-maintain-boulders-quality-life)

"A couple of weeks ago, I went to the East Boulder workshop and couldn't wait
to discuss my ideas about slowing down job growth in Boulder and other ideas
for the housing issues."

~~~
eeeeeeeeeeeee
Wow, I cannot believe this is not the Onion!

------
TaylorGood
Author makes blanket absolutes about the State of California and the American
Dream. Don't agree. Also, article funnels into a home listing.. fwiw

~~~
bdcravens
It's a housing news site, with ads. Many tech blogs have a big call to action
pitching their mailing list for their info-products or training on every
article.

HN is commonly filled with blanket false-absolutes about SJWs, or Republicans,
or those of faith, or those into Bitcoin, etc...

------
davidw
Great article, but... still politics. Even if they're politics that I think
are extremely important in many places in the US right now, it probably still
doesn't belong.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
noir_lord
How does some politics not belong on a board that deals primarily with
startups and entrepreneurs, neither operates in a vacuum and the availability
of good staff who can afford to live where you want to set up premises etc is
a crucial thing.

Where I live in the UK we have the fastest average internet speed (by quite a
margin), top 5 lowest cost of living and excellent transport links, We have
basically no external investment and that is in part down to politics.

You can ignore politics but it won't ignore you.

~~~
davidw
Because politics is more important, and of broader appeal than most of what we
discuss here, it will consume the site if allowed to.

Or: how much do you _really_ want to read about Trump vs Hillary here?

