Hacker News Reader

Comment by ProAm | Hacker News Reader

> the landlords and homeowners who reap all the benefits from the status quo have somehow been able to dupe the housing have-nots who suffer from it

And by that you mean the people who worked and saved to invest in something wisely to have that take out from under them? I cannot stand people who think home owners and landlords as evil people just because people who come after them cannot have it easy. It was never easy for anyone. It's not the have and have not's, it's the market and hardwork, sure some people are born into wealth but most the time it's just hard work.

View on HN

> And by that you mean the people who worked and saved to invest in something wisely to have that take out from under them?

How is dumping your savings into a single asset "wise investment"? The idea that housing should be a good investment is ludicrous on its face when you consider its potential volatility, constant upkeep, and lack of liquidity. I'm not sure why it continues to be promoted, and I think people should be disabused of it. Not only so they make better investment decisions, but so that housing speculation is less of driving force in real estate costs.

What you're suggesting is that we allow putting barriers to new development to artificially keep this asset class valuable for its owners. Why does this make sense for housing but not for stocks or mutual funds?

I own a house and stocks. I can live in my house. And it allows me to grow tomatoes. They are both good investments for different and overlapping reasons.

You mistake the term investment to mean solely a financial context here.

There's a thing as investing in stability, investing in the ability to modify things as you please, investing in not having to answer to a landlord, investing in having a place for your dog or children...

Your desire to change the rules to favor your taking that same block of land for yourself doesn't seem inherently any more holy than their desire to keep the rules as they are today. And when it comes to setting policy based on the whims of 20-something-newcomers, some potential downsides increasingly start to poke out. Let's put a pause on YIMBY-ism, let's fix the NYC and SF Bay Area transit systems to properly serve the density that's already there, first!

That's a bit dismissive way to put it. "The whims of 20-something newcomers". A lot of of these people are people who grew up and went to high school here but as the article says anecdotally that 2 of 400 high school graduates from one class are in the same area, the rest having been forced to abandon their native home because of housing rules preventing construction.

Also the word "whim" is just as dismissive to a group of people who are organizing, lobbying, petitioning, etc to get the right to build apartment buildings so they have a place to live and sleep and raise children. It's not a bunch of millennial google employees who just showed up and casually decided they want to buy a house.

But it's so easy to turn this into a "entitled millennials" story instead of discussing a real housing crisis that has been developing for the last 50 years due to restrictive building codes that favor the wealthy I suppose.

No one is trying to eminent-domain your land. If you own a place, you’re not going to lose it unless you choose to sell.

It's not a perfect analogy, but I typically say that people are born short a house. That is, your first house is merely covering your short position and is therefore not an investment.

>I'm not sure why it continues to be promoted, and I think people should be disabused of it.

Same goes for any IPO, or any investment in a startup, etc... Or is it?

Im advocating not changing the game because the new players find the rules unfair.

I think you've missed his point a bit. If I invested in a cigarette company and then a state decides that smoking can't happen within 5 meters of an eating area and this will affect cigarette sales I don't have a right to stop this law just because my investment might be hurt.

Same with Herbalife, it's considered a pyramid scheme and a scam by many people. Maybe one day the US government says they have to shut down because some new law passses targeting them. In my world, I don't think they should be allowed to stay open just because some investors might be hurt.

Property carries a risk just like any other investment and just because property was scarce at one point doesn't mean it needs to be forever. If the bay continues to have skyrocketing rents and no construction then eventually people will leave and the owner's investments will go to shit anyway.

If housing is a business like every other, then why can't the rules change? The rules change for other businesses all the time: from tax changes; new laws; new technology; changes in interest rates; investment climate; etc. The rules are always changing, and businesses have to adapt. Why would housing be immune from change?

You say it's all hard work.. then why be afraid of opening the market to more competition? They can put in some hard work at maintaining their position... like every other business in existence.

> it was never easy for anyone

Are you familiar with the property tax structure in San Francisco? It's wacky in a way that causes old homeowners to have vastly different rates from new homeowners, in a way that is frankly ridiculous. It is vastly easier (more affordable) for existing landowners.

The OPs bit that you quoted is accurate. The laws in the bay area surrounding taxation, eviction, and construction significantly disadvantage anyone that isn't generationally entrenched. We're not talking about stealing people's land via eminent domain or anything similarly draconian... old owners and new owners are not on a financially level playing field, and that should change.

Even a cursory amount of research should leave you with the impression that bay area housing is not regulated in a way that allows normal market forces to play out, so saying "it's the market and hard work" is disingenuous.

> the people who worked and saved to invest in something wisely to have that take out from under them

Sounds like the regulatory environment was an investment risk that wasn't taken into account.

Persistence in regulations isn't some sort of right. Laws change all the time. Any investment made without considering the risk of the anti-NIMBY movement is no different from any other un-diligenced investment -- foolish.

Holding an asset and concerned about the risk of diminishing property values in the face of shifting regulations? Unload. You'd do the same if you're seeing a company where you're Long run into potentially difficult headwinds.

When did I say they were evil? My point is that yes, they're acting in their own self-interest (which is fine), but crucially, they've somehow convinced the housing-have-nots that artificially restricting the supply of new housing is somehow in their interest, too.

I think this proposition will break that spell, and in a democracy, when the housing-haves vote their self-interest, and the have-nots vote theirs, the latter will win in a landslide.

It comes across like people complaining that there are no pensions anymore and its unfair.... If you don't like the circumstances whose fault is it for staying in those circumstances?? The bay is tiny land locked piece of land, its never going to be good/better. It's a bunch of smart people making poor decisions.

> If you don't like the circumstances whose fault is it for staying in those circumstances??

Are you suggesting that I leave my home, my job, my social life, etc rather than trying to affect changes in policy?

If its having such an abject effect on your life? Why would you stay? You obviously had the skills to put yourself into such a position, you have the skills to get yourself into a much better position.

Are you saying people should just run away from whatever problem they have? Why can't people fix things? Policies are just things people have agreed to. They're just words on paper. People can write new words on paper.

> Are you saying people should just run away from whatever problem they have?

People are complaining about moving to an expensive part of town and finding that it's actually expensive. That's not a problem, just poor judgment.

Just like that time when you bought property thinking you could control all of your adjacent surroundings through zoning policy, only to find out that you didn’t get that in the deed. Super foolish.

> If its having such an abject effect on your life? Why would you stay? You obviously had the skills to put yourself into such a position, you have the skills to get yourself into a much better position.

Because we believe we can effect change. I don't want to screw anyone over but home prices MUST come down regardless of how many second and third mortgages go underwater. What can we do to get you to support new construction?

https://youtu.be/dcbjWGj3jBk

It is the fault of the politicians for not changing the laws, and for us not pushing for these laws to be changed.

But let's fix that. Let's do the right thing and get rid of these ridiculous barriers to entry for building affordable housing.

> It comes across like people complaining that there are no pensions anymore and its unfair....

Firstly, we can and should renegotiate not only outrageous pension plans but also outrageous public salary. Or we can just let the local government go bankrupt if the unions won't blink. Maybe we need compensation caps in public office. Sorry for going off-topic but I just wanted to address your premise because it is not solid at all.

Only if we take your “right” to low building heights as sacrosanct.

"I cannot stand people who think home owners and landlords as evil people just because people who come after them cannot have it easy."

They're not evil, they're just selfish, and making life harder and more expensive for the rest of us.

> they're just selfish,

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black

A person selling a good is protective of the value of the good they're selling. Selfish bastards. If I'm renting high-end apartments why would I want developments that make them or the area less attractive?

You don't want them, but what you want is entirely irrelevant. This isn't a discussion about what existing landlords do with their own property, it's about not letting them block the new housing that they have absolutely no stake in and that benefits everyone else in the city.

If it really benefited everyone we wouldn't be having this discussion and if landlords had nothing at stake they wouldn't be weighing in on the debate.

Just because someone doesn't have a financial stake in the literal plot of land doesn't mean that they aren't affected by new developments. Mediating disputes involving negative externalities is exactly the government's job.

Except that it does benefit everyone, which is why the Yimby movement is gaining traction at the rate it is. It just wasn't as clear-cut and financially painful to the average person until a few years ago which is why it took so long to correct.

It's not really a Yimby movement though, this is more of a YIYBY

Everyone wants to see more housing built in other people's backyards -- NIMBYs and YIMBYs alike.

What sets YIMBYs apart is that, in addition to this, they also support building more housing in their own backyards, too.

Indeed - and a country made of single family homes has catastrophic externalities via its car dependence. Exclusivity in cities with economic opportunity denies it to all but the already-privileged and widens the gap. Housing scarcity hurts the poor and burdens local social services.

Beyond the hyperlocal level (like, block level) the externalities lens says build, build, build.

It's pretty ironic to throw around words like "invest", "market", and "hardwork" while making an argument that the government should prohibit new development to protect your property value.

Is it really that surprising that the value of a house is more than the literal plot of land it sits on? The neighborhood, the community, public spaces, small businesses, the school district, transportation options.

Yes, and all of these things change. You didn't buy the right to freeze time.

Nobody, on any side of the debate, is advocating that people who own houses have their homes taken away.

Just the approval of housing developments that radically changes their neighborhood and communuty. Good thing those things don't influence a person's housing choices or property values.

The lack of new housing is radically changing the neighborhood and community. Neighborhood and community come from people, not buildings.

How do you think it got there in the first place?

> And by that you mean the people who worked and saved to invest in something wisely to have that take out from under them?

If you purchased real estate on the understanding that no new buildings would ever be built near your land, you did not invest wisely, and it's no one's responsibility to protect you from the consequences of your lack of foresight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com