Hacker News Reader

Comment by jinushaun | Hacker News Reader

Love this quote:

“Most people would be very uncomfortable tearing down 315 houses. But they don’t have a similar objection to never building them in the first place, even though I feel they’re morally equivalent. Those people show up anyway. They get born anyway. They get a job in the area anyway. What do they do? They live in an overcrowded situation, they pay too much rent, they have a commute that’s too long. Or maybe they outbid someone else, and someone else is displaced.”

“It’s easy to see the problem when you’re tearing down someone’s home. But when you’re not building, it’s hard to see whose home it is.”

View on HN

I was coming to say the same thing. I think this is a good question to ask of the folks who object to building homes, "What if the people who lived in this town before you moved here had blocked the building of the home you are living in?" You wouldn't have had that wonderful experience you are trying to preserve because you would never have lived here."

It is very sobering.

I live in an sf suburb. I talk to local homeowners in the dog park at night and they're all wildly opposed to density, often with a nice core of racism too (I'm white so white people say some wild shit to me; you hear references to "those people" and it's not that deeply coded.) The only thing that cheers me about all the nimbys where I live is all their kids are getting kicked out. Seriously. In 20 years when their kids want a house, it will cost $2.5mm on the low end to own a home here. There will be a tiny handful of careers that pay the necessary wages.

To be fair, lots of people who are minorities who live in gentrifying neighborhoods also tinge their conversation with racism. To presume one "race" should be less or more prone to racism is problematic, as if they are or should be better than they show.

People in gentrifying neighborhoods always blame the people moving in for, apparently, bullying the poor helpless landlords into increasing the rent. I'm really not sure how that mindset propagates, but the landlords must love it.

The situations are radically different. The reason gentrification is even a thing is because of the massive wealth imbalance between whites and minorities. It's not "oh my god these people are going to ruin my culture" it's "Oh great the people are flying in to price me out of my home in 3 years."

it's not irrational to be opposed to density. Racism aside, density changes the character of the neighborhood and potentially lowers property values of existing homeowners. So, it's not surprising people are apprehensive

'character' is just code for 'I don't want to share' or even worse 'I bought in and if we make more housing, my price won't go up as much'

No, that's not correct. Character is what the neighborhood looks like, visually. Some people like to live on quiet tree lined streets not in a Manhattan like neighborhood. Immediately assuming they are racist is ridiculous

>Some people like to live on quiet tree lined streets not in a Manhattan

A.k.a they don't want to share.

> 'character' is just code for 'I don't want to share'

Nonsense. I don't live in San Fran, I do live in a city whose character has changed. I don't mind that people saw the cool inner city and wanted to share. I do mind that developer put up cheap high-rises with shit sound insulation, and then waged war on music venues, getting most of them shut down. I do mind that rents escalate massively year-on-year so that the hitherto broad range of inhabitants have steadily whittled down to a richer and richer (and frankly less interesting) rump. I do mind that many landlords would apparently rather see an empty shopfront than an interesting store that's no longer viable because apparently the thing to do is year-on-year 30% rent rises.

Rents escalating massively is usually a case of supply controls.

I don't know why you are being downvoted,what you stated is fairly uncontroversial and easily supported. Perhaps people are assuming some stance or approval of that from your words.

It is rational behavior to protect your investments and way of life in this manner. I think it's often short-term rationalization, and acting on bad information, but people are acting in a rational manner given their information and circumstances. Given that, it's probably good to address the base of that rationalization, rather than expect them to behave differently. I.e. give them more information that makes their prior behavior no longer the clearly beneficial choice for them, if such information exists. Play upon their sense of justice and ideals (such as ChuckMcM is). etc.

I think what you want to say is: it's rational to be opposed to density.

What's your point? The parents could transfer the home to the kids. Or they could sell it for top dollar and help their kids out financially. And perhaps the kids might need to live a few towns over where it's not quite as expensive. I don't really understand what your point is.

"Then I would have bought a different home, for slightly more money"

But what if there had been no houses built here at all?

"Then I guess I'd live somewhere else"

Cool, so when are you moving?

(only half kidding) But that is the right answer right? Once they admit they have the flexibility of living anywhere they want then they should exercise that power if the city council votes in ways they don't like right? I get that it is a very complex patina of things that make up change, and when you have lived somewhere 20 years to have it change inexorably makes you feel powerless, but change is the constant.

My experience so far in talking with people is that they somehow want to keep things the way they were when they got there, and can't internalize that this merely put a pin in spectrum of change they experienced, rather than stopped it or changed it. In Sunnyvale, it used to be all orchards so most people are living on what was once productive farmland, and by moving there they helped destroy hundreds of jobs of people who worked at the Del Monte fruit packing plant (now gone). So they were the bad guys, and now we have this new set of people who are asking for a denser, less car centric, sort of existence with a walkable space and good public transit. So who are "we", the current residents, to judge "them" by what they want?

Everyone wants a living and thriving city. And what it takes to be that changes over the years, people lose sight of that though.

> Cool, so when are you moving?

When someone goes back in time and convinces the dev not to make the house.

Sorry, that's nonsense. The problem not only in the bay area is the irrational and unnecessary concentration of people. It is quite unsettling to me that just because some people don't like what you do on or with your private property that you feel entitled to impose yourself and your will upon them. It's really a kind of liberal tyranny that is not only sweeping this country but it seems at least the western world. It strikes me as a kind of lower class hacking order / squabbling and anger that really should be focused on the only legitimate and justifiable target for anger and animosity, the wealthy. Just because you and your fellow drones are frustrated that they can't afford to live in the place they want to live does not justify some sort of right or privilege to simply demand it or throw a tantrum about it and impose your will in an oppressive manner.

The real problem here is why this concentration of people and opportunity and economic activity is happening in the first place. I bet that if the government had not or would cut off the economic centers in the country from government spending and made a deliberate effort to inject money into slightly less economically active areas that only need an money injection, the housing problem in SF, NYC, Austin, etc. would essentially evaporate overnight.

Ultimately the real problem is a concentration of opportunities in a few economic centers, which is irrational in and of itself and only perversion of a manipulated, mutated, and distorted market due to the spike in oil prices that have dropped off and the Fed pumping money into the highest layers of society, which has led the little rat and roaches to squabble over the crumbs and droppings of the wealthy all around their hives and layers. You want to solve the housing problem far faster than being authoritarian dicks??? Vote for Bernie Sanders, or really anyone who will break up the grotesque concentration of wealth with a few and in a few places.

The downvotes here are really inappropriate. I disagree with most of this comment, but it's well up to the standards of political discourse on HN.

Nonsense, it's just inflammatory language unbound by facts, it should never have been posted.

> It's really a kind of liberal tyranny...

>I bet that if the government had not or would cut off the economic centers in the country from government spending

>...only perversion of a manipulated, mutated, and distorted market due to the spike in oil prices...

>...authoritarian dicks???

These are not the ramblings of one based in reality or the basis for a reasonable discussion.

Is it? Just because it's political and long-winded doesn't mean it's quality. He doesn't even have a point. "Rah, filthy liberals and poor drones trying to live in the city where they have jobs, rah fight against big government imposing its control over you, oh by the way you should vote for a socialist."

Does that make any sense? It's the pointless rambling of someone who wants to use the government to force you to stop using the government to force him to do something he doesn't want to do. It boils down to "the government should stop letting poor people vote". Pure nonsense.

"It's really a kind of liberal tyranny that is not only sweeping this country but it seems at least the western world. It strikes me as a kind of lower class hacking order / squabbling and anger"

Yeah..No. It's just rantings of someone steeped deeply in one extreme of a the political spectrum.

First, concentration of economic value in urban centers is a constant since the first cities appeared. That's what they are for. This is not the result of a government ploy. This is not a 10'000 years old conspiracy.

Second, no one is forcing homeowners to tear down their houses or do things they don't want to do with their private property. The debate is not about eminent domain. There are enough landowners willing to sell their piece of land to develop dense housing, enough developers willing to build it, and enough buyers or renters for the housing. The current nimbyism of trying to force your neighbors to conform to your little vision of what they should do or not do with their piece of land goes against the private property rights you advocate for. Let them build what they want to build on their property.

I don't really understand your whole post but am also not sure it merits down voting.

Where I think you're wrong is with respect to concentration of people/activity/opportunity. It is quite natural for such concentrations to occur and certainly far from irrational.

In general [1], people who hate developers and/or development live, work, shop, and worship in places developed by developers. Someone subdivided and sold the land. The infrastructure of deeds, insurance and mortgages that makes the contemporary housing markets possible exists because development has and continues to take place.

[1]: In the United States.

In my experience (albeit not SFBA), people tend to support development in the abstract while loathing any specific development that is currently ongoing or proposed in their own cities. It might have something to do with the sausagemaking aspects of getting municipal approval and the back-and-forth about who pays for which infrastructure upgrades.

IMO, there is a reasonable complaint that people who live somewhere for 30 years might be continuously paying for infrastructure that's only needed because more people moved into the area. Basically, when an area needs to build a new school to accommodate new people that cost is split among everyone not just the new people. Then in 10 years when they need another school you pay for it again etc. This results in developers being able to pawn off the majority of infrastructure costs.

Currently, areas often use zoning to try and limit growth, but that just means whoever get's to build new property get's to pocket the difference which opens the way to graft etc. IMO, the reasonable solution to that problem is simply to tax people who build new property a share of the existing infrastructure costs. (Note: Bonds seem like a way to side step this, but your still splitting the costs with everyone not just immigrants.)

Of course there is also NIMBY issues where people don't want change. But, that's a separate issue.

Are there no development fees in the US? In Canada, municipalities will levy fees on developers to pay for all the new infrastructure. In some cities, this also helps keep taxes low for other residents by paying for operating costs as well.

We have those in California. New houses are generally built in "Mello Roos" districts, in which bonds are issued to cover things like new schools, streets, and sewers. Homeowners in those districts pay extra property taxes, which in theory go toward retiring the bonds.

Given how the property tax structure in California massively privileges incumbent property owners over newcomers, I'm not very sympathetic to this line of argument.

Most Bay Area cities also have rather large development fees.

You are right in this. New people will pay more property tax when purchasing their property, and thus pay a bigger share for the new infrastructure. The people who lived there before hand will be still paying around the rate that they moved in at.

That's not my experience at all. I would suggest it's the opposite.

I think people are quite aware of that line of thinking. Most people who live in slightly unpopular areas live there because they couldn't afford other places and now when the area has become more desirable they fear being pushed out. This is an especially legitimate concern if you are renting, since building might very well rise demand more than it does supply.

So they live in an old, bad quality building in a relatively good location. And they oppose replacing the old bad buildings with modern, well build buildings, because then they could not afford them anymore?

It could be, but more commonly it's just a quiet area with fewer amenities for people with more money.

If someone didn't build your house, you'd go find another house! How is that sobering?

You're missing the point. If you "found another house", you would displace someone else. Restricting housing below demand is playing musical chairs with homes.

Why is musical chairs with a finite resource a problem? We do this with most finite things right, oil, gas, water, food, etc? The supply is usually slightly less than needed, pegging prices such that it's available (not free) at a profitable rate. The problem here seems like people feel entitled toward something they cannot afford and will sue in light of their inability to pay.

You're talking like this is a free-market situation. It's not, because supply is being artificially constrained below what the market could naturally and profitably support, by overregulation of new construction. We don't take too kindly to all of the holders of oil, gas, water, or food conspiring to restrict its availability to drive prices up either.

I agree, it is hard to talk of free-market solutions when there are so many government restrictions and regulations already in place. You can't make more houses if there is not enough area on a give plot, unless you build up, which is not easy to do safely, and inexpensively in a seismic zone. I was born and raised in Brooklyn, and lived in Manhattan later. I had no problem seeking a life outside of NYC when I couldn't afford it. My father moved out of the apartment he was in for over 40 years, and found a new place for a bit more, that has given him a new life and social circle. It's not always a bad scenario. You find your way or place.

These are factors, but what's discussed in the article is not regulation due to safety, but regulation due to existing homeowners in the neighborhood not wanting their property values to go down as a result of the increased supply. That's just brazen market manipulation via control of the city government. Cities should have a role in making sure construction is safe. They shouldn't, in my opinion, have one in protecting the financial assets of incumbent homeowners.

Protecting property rights is one of the only legitimate purposes of government. Incumbent property owners should absolutely use their government to both protect and even improve their assets. Life, liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness.

Yes we don't take kindly but said resources are almost entirely subject to conspiracy in one way or another either to suppress or inflate rates. Living space is like any other resource, scarce but sometimes alternatives exist, ie. move to a different location for better access to resources on more favorable terms.

What if the people who currently have food were able to get together and decide no one was allowed to grow any more food. They would also declare grocery stores would not be allowed to restock, then put in a zoning ordinance saying new grocery stores could only sell 1/10 the amount of food that existing grocery stores sell.

That is what is happening with housing. Land might be finite, but housing stock is nowhere near its limits. Developers are more than willing to spend money to build more. It is not being built due to the opposition of those who already have a place to live.

I mean no disrespect but this is bizarre to me that people believe developers should have more access or protection than incumbent property owners. Seems like exactly what government should be doing. This is why we have borders, immigration laws, zoning, licensing, etc. isn't it?

Ok, all good points.

The other side is that they moved into a neighborhood that has a certain number of houses in it, and parks. And they of course want it the same as what they paid for.

The assumption that a neighborhood will not change over 10, 20, 30 years is never an economically-wise assumption.

I was born into a world with a certain number of people (4.5 billion) and now there are a whole lot more. (7 billion.) I didn't want any more people. Those people are violating my rights. /s

I get what you are saying, but sometimes it's about narrow streets, sewer systems that are at capacity, water mains that are too small, traffic, horrid transportation systems, just towns that weren't built to scale?

Yes, you will find groups of people who don't want new people moving in, or the town they founded spoiled with overbuilding. Bolinas comes to mind. These guys(Basically Hippies) built houses out here when no one realized just how beautiful a small community can be, and just how beautiful it is out there. They designed their little town with only a certain number of water hookups. They were upfront about their desires--they didn't want developement, nor other people. It essentiall stopped all building. As a young man who wanted to build out there, I thought it was unfair; but I can also see the wisdom in what they did. It's just a complex problem.

I am sympathetic to people who need housing. I actully belive in rent control. I just don't have a answer.

On a slightly different note, I belive we need to end homelessness yesterday. Every town should be required to have an area where people can camp. It doesn't need to be fancy. Just a place where a person can pitch a tent, without getting a ticket, or killed. There can be porta potties, and mobile wash stations. Cops can patrol the camp sites if needed. I don't think everyone will want to live in these primitive campsites. If that became a problem, you could require proof of previous residency.

Got off track--sorry.

You pay for the land and the structure. The neighborhood isn't something you pay for. Rather, it's a public good that you take advantage of.

The author here is essentially describing the classic 'seen vs unseen' problem which Bastiat outlined in his 1850 essay titled "What is Seen and What is Not Seen".[1][2]

[1] http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#C...

Looks like a case of the Copenhagen Interpretation of ethics recently discussed here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855

That's a rather odd perspective. Does this person also view murder as morally equivalent to contraception?

Do you view tearing down a house as equivalent to murder? The syllogism depends on the process in question -- hypothesizing a different version by swapping out nouns contributes nothing to the conversation.

Next time they're drinking a latte or beer, smack it out of their hands.

After all, having your drink taken from you is morally equiavlent to never having it in the first place, right?

And you're going to pay for it? Because there's a big difference in simply not having a latte, and having paid for one only to have to knocked all over your shirt...

This is exactly what the speaker seems to be missing. Building homes required significant money in the first place; there's no such thing as a free house.

My point is that if Person A purchases something, and then Person B says that having that thing taken is equivalent to not having it in the first place, then Person B is ignoring the cost that Person A had to incur in the first place.

> This is exactly what the speaker seems to be missing. Building homes required significant money in the first place; there's no such thing as a free house.

You do realize the speaker is advocating for developers, who have the money (typically through financing, which is fairly straightforward to get if you are a competent developer), to be allowed to build the projects they propose. Not for housing to magically appear out of the ether.

Sorry, but destroying something and not building something are not even slightly morally equivalent. And that's the problem with some activists: they are so far removed from common sense.

By that logic, we shouldn't be building houses, but hospitals, homeless shelters, orphanages, and retirement homes.

After all, what kind of a monster tears down those things?

Building houses doesn't prevent building hospitals and etc. And if they are needed, of course you should.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com