
The answer to California's housing crisis is more housing - MagicPropmaker
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/opinion/california-housing.html
======
mabbo
You can't just demand more housing. You have to make people want it. This is
why I'm strongly in favor of taxing land by area.

A ten story condo with 100 units takes up as much land as 8 houses with yards.
By reducing everyone's taxes then making up the difference via a land tax, you
effectively lower the taxes on people using high density land use homes. You
make it a more desirable lifestyle.

Demand from voters leads to changes in law.

~~~
codingdave
That would significantly increase the taxes on agricultural use. Is that your
intent? To incentivize high density residential, while making it hard to grow
food?

~~~
rmah
There isn't much agricultural land, if any, in cities and suburbs. In the US,
land is taxed at the local level (municipality and county), not at the state
or federal level.

~~~
madengr
Not always. Here in KS side of Kansas City suburbs you will find crop fields
between dense, multi-story developments. The agriculture land tax is applied
throughout the state. The developers exploit this to pay vastly lower property
taxes than if it were vacant land.

One instance in particular, they’ll run a harvester right next to a 6 story
development, and it probably only takes 10 minutes of run-time. Pretty crazy,
but it’s a tax savings.

~~~
aswanson
KU seems to have an excellent emag staff, from your comments. Would you
recommend sending a son there for EE (out of state)? Also, did you take any
classes under Dr. John Schmalzel? I had a few classes with him and he went
there.

~~~
madengr
Yes, if your son is interested in RF and RADAR/Remote Sensing, they have an
excellent program.

No, looks like he was there before me. I did an MSEE in ‘96, under Moore and
Gogineni.

------
maxxxxx
I think there should be a national effort to "spread out" the economy and
fight the trend towards centralization in a few areas. If you build more
housing in CA, even more people will move there and the overcrowding will
become even worse. There should be incentives for companies to move away from
places like SV and NY.

More acceptance of remote work would help too but I wouldn't hold my breath
for it.

~~~
snidane
This is an instance of Jevon's paradox. The more housing you build to meet
housing need of people then even more people will come in creating even larger
demand for housing.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)

~~~
imtringued
Jevons paradox is a nice example of bikeshedding. It doesn't change the
decision making process at all because it looks like this:

supply < demand: build more housing.

demand > supply: build less housing

If demand grows faster than supply then it just means that you need to build
more housing.

And let's be honest in a world with massive amounts of liquid capital but
nothing worthwhile to invest into an infinite money sink that keeps increasing
ROI the more you spend on it is actually almost magical and you know what?
It's impossible in a world with physical constraints. You just haven't reached
them yet.

------
epmatsw
> because developers mostly would build high-end units

This is such a frustrating perspective.

~~~
maehwasu
It's frustrating because, as propaganda, it's been _extremely_ effective.

If you're an opponent of increased housing supply in California, you can roll
out that talking point whenever threatened. It's tested, emotionally resonant,
and most people don't have the time to be explained why it's wrong.

Supporters of increased housing in CA need to come up with their own powerful
rhetoric, rather than whining about the fact that their opponents' rhetoric
works.

(Whining further that bad rhetoric shouldn't be allowed is even worse--we live
in a democracy; you have to influence people; rhetoric matters.)

~~~
inferiorhuman
It's effective because there's a measure of truth in there, especially in
California. Prop 13 will limit taxes on existing housing stock, so cities and
counties will levy fees on new developments to make up for it. Additionally,
the cost of labor in much of California is such that just building any
structure is extremely expensive (to the extent that only luxury units will
make any money for the developer).

~~~
MagicPropmaker
Prop 13 allows a 2% increase a year. That's more than enough to keep up with
inflation.

~~~
inferiorhuman
Housing price growth well exceeds inflation.

------
temp99990
There is so much wasted/poorly optimized land in SF. I cringe whenever I see
the massive surface level Safeway parking lot in Duboce/Church.

~~~
kradroy
They should tear down the Fed Mint building behind that Safeway and turn it
into housing. I don't even believe that branch does anything other than print
proofs. A waste of space, but it's not happening during this presidency for
sure.

~~~
ip26
Organizations that live on indefinitely- governments, universities, churches-
don't give up land almost as a rule. One or two hundred years from now, they
might really need this or that plot, and it could be nearly impossible to
acquire then.

One easy to appreciate example are universities & other schools holding (&
sometimes leasing) land adjacent to them. If they didn't, in the distant
future if they need to expand, some scalper or holdout could cause large
problems.

~~~
kradroy
The US Federal government sells land/property all the time.

And as a consequence of the old adage "time is money", an indefinitely
existing organization has an indefinite amount of money. Those institutions
you mentioned have no issue buying whatever they want; holdouts be damned. A
government pretty much has infinite money, churches are quite wealthy as a
whole, and universities have a substantial pool of donors to tap despite
having insanely large endowments that are quite well managed.

I don't think your argument holds up.

------
api
This is true, but I also think the answer is addressing the problem of
seemingly all opportunity being concentrated in less than 10 cities. Cities
face inevitable scaling limits.

There has always been regional inequality of opportunity, but never to this
degree.

A great way to see the problem is to look at where the top ten most popular
early personal computers came from. You will see places like Philadelphia
(C64), Miami/Boca Raton (IBM), Dallas (TI), and Albuquerque (Altair). These
days it would be almost all the Bay Area and maybe one from Seattle, NYC,
Boston, or LA metro.

~~~
0xB31B1B
Strong disagree. Urban aggregation is a global phenomenon in modern times,
literally every country is seeing a rise of “mega cities”. It’s because
workers are choosing to move to these cities as these cities have more
opportunities for workers due to efficiencies of scale. The most dynamic
economies are encouraging moving to mega cities (ex: China). Cities might have
“scaling limits” but there is no evidence that any city in the world has
approached these limits.

~~~
api
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent)

------
esotericn
How does ownership of apartments work in California?

In the UK, owning a flat is decidedly inferior to owning a house. In large
blocks you will almost always have a leasehold, which almost always means
being subject to a whole host of onerous conditions from the actual building's
owner.

Share of freehold arrangements exist in smaller properties like old converted
houses. But that only increases density slightly, and these sorts of places
aren't really built any more; new developments are usually huge tower blocks
or little houses.

I'm looking at buying a place soon and will be going for a small freehold
house simply because that's the only way to actually own property in the UK as
far as I can tell. I've wasted far too much time on attempting to negotiate
sane leasehold conditions.

~~~
matchagaucho
Maybe just a matter of semantics, but high-density housing in the U.S. is
mostly comprised of "condos" and "apartments".

Condos are owned but must comply with homeowners association (HOA) rules on
upkeep and maintenance.

Apartments are rented and maintained by Landlord.

------
drfuchs
And what will be the source of the water for additional California residents
to subsist on? We just went through a 7-year drought, and they seem to be
becoming more frequent and longer; never mind that climate change is making it
all worse, as the snow-pack gets smaller and melts quicker.

We can cut agriculture and build more dams somewhere to buffer more snow melt,
but these are politically difficult to pull off, and of course have other
negative effects on various constituencies (including migrant workers, like
the ones who used to pick the crops where Silicon Valley now sits).

~~~
80mph
Not too long ago during the Camp/Paradise fires, just about everyone in
northern CA was breathing a toxic cloud of burnt drywall, cars, chemicals,
etc. for over a week. Think of the millions of gallons of water wasted, flame
retardants dumped, and carbon emissions created. Californians need to live in
denser construction near jobs. No more sprawling, low-level construction where
fires can easily spread and jump from one building to the next.

~~~
ip26
_Californians need to live in denser construction near jobs. No more
sprawling, low-level construction where fires can easily spread and jump from
one building to the next._

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but you don't exactly solve
the problem of fire propagation from house to house by putting everyone all
into one building. A given suburban house _might_ propagate and burn down. But
if a 500 unit apartment building goes, you're losing 500 units, no ifs ands or
buts.

~~~
imtringued
Denser construction is generally more resistant against fires.

------
orkon
Could this crisis be an instance of induced demand? [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand)

~~~
epistasis
What is induced?

California has been growing at a rate slower than other states. When it comes
to domestic migration, it exports more people to other states than it accepts.

When it comes to international migration, net migration is less than births
minus deaths, and that's with a low birth rate.

In the early 1960s, California had a population of 15 million and built
250k-300k homes per year. Currently California has a population of 40 million
and build 80k homes per year.

After the next census, California is expected to lose representation in the
House because most other states are growing faster than California.

California has had a major major change in population and building styles
since 1980, but policy decisions are still made under the assumption that we
are living with the 1960s numbers for building and population.

------
ahelwer
Have there been any studies examining the impact on the market of banning
career landlords and REITs? What happens if you restrict residential housing
to being owned by a single person who cannot own anything else in that area,
rather than letting capital have the run of the place and treating homes as an
investment plaything?

~~~
dahfizz
Would this mean no apartment buildings? Many people prefer to rent, and
banning that seems a little selfish and short sighted.

~~~
walshemj
Many people have to rent, from a purely economic aspect owning is better than
renting - there are social aspects to it as well.

~~~
dahfizz
Owning is better economically _if_ you're going to stay in that house for a
while. If you're living there less than a few years, all the costs associated
with purchasing and selling g a house can hurt pretty bad.

------
thatfrenchguy
Let's overturn Prop 13 first.

~~~
robertAngst
>government creates zoning laws that cause prices to skyrocket

>person wants more government

I've been confused about this perspective, can you break down the thought
train you have?

~~~
raydev
Don’t confuse “more government” with “different policies”.

If abusive parents exist, our first thought shouldn’t be to ban the existence
of parents.

------
walshemj
The problems with this is developers would love to abolish the green belt -
but guess what when it came to selling the price wont go down.

------
AbdulMohammad
If more housing was the answer then NYC would not have a housing problem. The
answer is not more housing.

~~~
Bombthecat
Absolutely agree! In my opinion the only way is to make smaller cities
attractive! No matter how high or wide you build. People want to move to
cities. Except they see a chance in smaller viliages. So we need more /
attractive jobs in villages and better infrastructure. Including theaters,
cinemas, shops, kindergartens etc etc.

~~~
kitsunesoba
Much easier said than done. For this to happen you’d have to convince multiple
companies, hopefully across several industries, to risk opening offices and
shops in such towns on nothing but faith that they’ll fill up in a somewhat
timely manner, and then you have to convince a bunch of folks to move to these
towns. Neither is particularly simple or straightforward.

And of course, there also a large portion of people who have no desire to live
in towns or suburbs, and these plans wouldn’t appeal to them at all. I’m
personally in this camp — I’ve had enough small town for a lifetime already.

~~~
Bombthecat
I don't think it about people. In my old town a bunch of offices closed and
moved to big city. They didn't hire new people. (probably also a way to get
rid of old people which didn't want to commute 1 hour to the city)

Also : why must it be 4 million city? Shouldn't it a 500k also enough?

But right now, even those cities bled people. Moving to big cities.

~~~
kitsunesoba
For my situation at least (and likely for many who move to large cities), more
people means more freedom in several ways. Better choice of jobs, often the
ability to walk straight out of one job into another, more variety in social
circles, more things to do, bigger dating pool, and improved likelihood that
people have better things to concern themselves with than each other’s
personal lives. It doesn’t come without downsides, but the negatives are
comparatively trivial for many.

------
DataWorker
California has a ‘too many people problem’. Housing is less critical than
transportation, infrastructure, fire safety, jobs for all demographic groups
(as opposed to tech jobs for well born young white men), and so on. Building
housing is like giving candy to calm a child’s tantrum.

~~~
futureastronaut
Since you're race baiting, I'd like to point out that there are plenty of us
white guys out here who are _not_ from privileged backgrounds and who have
worked very hard to get to where they are. Please stop with the prejudice, for
all people.

~~~
DataWorker
I’m talking job growth and demographics. The answer isn’t to make everyone
learn to code. We need jobs for other demographic groups. Look at San
Francisco and the displacement that’s occurred. To pretend it’s orthogonal to
race or age or parental ses is simply wrong. Yes, you and many others may be
somewhat exceptional, somewhat. I’m referring to aggregate statistics, not
exceptional cases.

