Hacker News Reader

Comment by crooked-v | Hacker News Reader

No. Fixing the housing problem will take overriding the NIMBYs that are limiting housing density, which the mayor doesn't have the power to do.

View on HN

I recently heard homeowners referred to as a cartel on a podcast. It was definitely thought provoking. Is there any way to create a home ownership system where existing homeowners are discouraged from making it harder for other people to get homes?

A land value tax works well, by removing the gains from land appreciation. This taxes the land value but not the property value, so the land owner captures the value of their improvement but not the value of rising land prices generally.

If you think about a land owner in SF, they didn't really do anything to earn the value of the appreciation of their land. They might have improved their house but the land value went up because of the tech boom.

In such a scenario, at the state level, you would also reduce or eliminate other taxes like the income tax and sales tax.

Supported by such diverse economists as Paul Krugman, Milton Friedman, and Joseph Stiglitz.

Good overview here: https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2015/04/01/why-henry...

and

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/02/henry-georges-lan...

Repealing prop 13

Anti-cartelling usually works by trying to prevent agreements, associations etc. from forming, it is taken as a given given that the players have some incentive to do that. You can't do this for towns, because the association already exists in the form of the local government.

That doesn't you are wrong to look at it from a incentive point point-of-view. It's just that thinking in terms of cartels might not help you much.

If you think of city/town governments as legal cartels then can't you think of the approach in SB 827 as an action by the government to regulate what the cartels can/can't do? The analogy probably falls apart if you push it any farther but it is interesting to think about.

Yep, the cartel model is probably good for understanding things like SB 827. Of course the straightforward interpretation is also correct: the bill was an argument about what powers different levels of government should wield.

Perhaps the cartel idea gives guidance here: power should be held at a level high enough that the electorate doesn't represent the interest of a cartel. (Since as we all know, special interests never have special access to the corridors of power at high level).

Do you recall the podcast or have a link to the episode? Always keen to hear new perspectives on housing and housing policy.

I think it was this one: https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...

It would be EconTalk with Glen Wyle.

Batshit crazy. A Georgian land taxer who is just as batshit as all their fellow travellers.

No, it wasn't that one. I linked the one I listened to under the parent to this post.

The person that compares homeowners to a cartel was Paavo Monkkone. He is a professor of public policy and urban planning at UCLA.

Cartels use violence to gain profit.

Homeowners invest their own money, at significant interest rates, to obtain a place to live. They do of course have an interest in protecting that investment - with increased density comes increased crime, stressed parking, and other problems.

To call homeowners a "cartel" as if they're extorting their local community for protection money is inherently misleading.

A cartel just means colluding to limit supply to increase profit for cartel members. There is nothing in the definition of a cartel that requires violence or illegality.

For instance, Canada has a legal maple syrup cartel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Quebec_Maple_Syr...

Not just supply, cartels are a group working together to manipulate markets in a variety of ways, also including:

Hold prices for their own suppliers artificially low by agreeing a price cap and refusing to pay more. They rely on suppliers having nowhere else to sell. e.g. British supermarkets have been repeatedly accused and sometimes IIRC convicted of operating a cartel to demand unfairly low prices from food producers.

Agree to split geographies so that there's effectively no competition to supply and each member of the cartel has local monopolies in all or most territory. This should be familiar to US folks who want High Speed Internet outside of a major city.

All agree never to offer a product which would hurt the overall market but be profitable for the first to offer it. Some have claimed the long delay in electric cars coming to market is evidence of this sort of cartel.

Cartels are illegal in much of the world (but ordinary laws don't apply to sovereign entities). If you're ever part of some big industry insider meeting and the lawyers make everybody agree not to talk about prices, future products or other commercial issues it's not because they're commercially sensitive, it's because your executives could do jail time if a court decides your group is a cartel.

> with increased density comes increased crime, stressed parking, and other problems.

Increased density does not increase crime. There's no evidence for this. There are very dense places with low crime and very low density place with lots of crime.

"stressed parking" is probably true, but part of the point of increased density is that you have less need for a car.

"other problems" is dog whistle.

>Increased density does not increase crime. There's no evidence for this.

I think I agree with you, but you are over simplifying the issue. Increased density does not increase crime per capita. It does increase crime per other measures of crime intensity (crime per square ft?). https://nycdatascience.com/blog/student-works/pressure-cooke...

Accusing me of dog whistling seems to be an extremely bad faith interpretation of anything I said. There is absolutely a well supported, highly researched and discussed relationship between density and increased crime rates and that you simply dismissed my point reeks of preconceived notions that you aren't attempting to actually grapple with.

http://theipti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/covariance.pdf

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/13030.html (non-primary)

If I attempt to build an apartment building on your block, on land I own, the police will eventually arrest me and take me away.

Damn right you're using violence to gain a profit.

So I should be able to build a fracking site next to your apartment building then, since it's "land I own".

Unless you are an anarcho-pacifist, you have accepted that there are some legitimate uses of violence, so just because they don't think you should be able to frack next door to them doesn't mean that they don't think violence is involved in keeping you from fracking next door to them.

That sounds like more of a zoning issue. You can't just build an apartment somewhere because you own the land.

That's exactly what the parent was saying, just differently.

When you violate zoning they don't ask nicely you know.

It was disheartening to see Jane Kim vote against sb827. The detractors moaned that it would usurp local authority over development. As someone who has to put up with the effects of insane housing policy, I'd rather see the state step in here. The local governments and NIMBYs are already failing us.

nit: Jane Kim a SF supervisor did not have a vote a California State Senate bill

But she changed her position and held rallies opposing 827 saying allowing more housing near public transportation was not the answer nor going vertical. She says “we are not against housing" and "this is not the right way to build” but her actions prove different. I have not seen any solutions from her

true, thanks for the correction.

People decades ago said exactly what you're saying and that's how we got local regulation. It turns out local regulation just entrenched the problems more deeply.

I've yet to hear a good reason why recursion is going to solve the problem instead of entrench it at the next level up.

Housing supply is in part a collective action problem. Lots of people will benefit from development somewhere else, but lose out from the local effect of development down the block. If the net effects of a development are positive, but the negative effects are concentrated whether local power can block the development, less development will happen and people are worse off overall.

And even if he could override NIMBYs, the number of laws and processes and procedures in place that prevent more building are absolutely staggering. Not to mention, the middle class is leaving. By the time we get rid of all the crazy regulations, the middle class will be gone and there will be no one left to build this stuff up ~ someone's got to wield the hammers (labor cost will be too high).

But do landowners have majority voting power in SF? If not, then maybe some people aren't voting to their interests.

"But do landowners have majority voting power in SF? If not, then maybe some people aren't voting to their interests."

It is implied (and sometimes expressed) that "NIMBY" outcomes in elections like this are illegitimate and not "true" democratic outcomes.

I reject this notion. I am very much in favor of urban in-fill in San Francisco and increased density in many parts of the city - but not at the expense of democratic processes.

I can't verify with real numbers but my mental model is that votes on housing are not representative of the population.

SF has a very high foreigner population that cant vote. They are moslty renters. US renters also might not live enough time in the city to register, be politically active, or end up moving due to lifestyle or economic reasons. And of renters you will have those that have rent control, which end up in tandem with owners about de-regularization.

Im sure that if you put up a vote landowners and rent-controlled renters have a concentrated interest, and renters and foreigners dont have representation even if they are the majority. If you took all renters of SF in the last 6 years you might get a higher number than landowners but they cannot fight it politically.

So I adhere to the notion of unrepresentative democratic outcomes.

The voter laws also exclude people like me. I work in SF and would love to live in SF, but because of the high rental prices within city limits I'm living in Brisbane instead. I consider myself a natural part of the San Francisco constituency but have been disenfranchised by the city's artificially high cost of living.

The last time I registered to vote after moving I was able to do it the week I moved, when I went to the DMV to get my driver's license. I would imagine it's similar in the Bay Area.

I think it's reasonable not to allow foreigners to vote on local political issues, just as we do on national ones. I wouldn't expect to have a say on political issues in countries I'm not a citizen of. Otherwise you don't have any skin in the game. You can just leave if you don't like the way things are going.

I think part of the problem is there aren't clear policy proposals to solve housing issues so it's hard to get people to support them. Plus the good land is already developed so you'd have to use eminent domain or something to build affordable housing.

> You can just leave if you don't like the way things are going.

That applies to local politics for everyone though, it's just as easy for a citizen to move to another city. I'm an immigrant to another country. I'm married, I have kids. I pay taxes. I can't just leave, I very much have skin in the game. Meanwhile the native youth are leaving in droves to bigger cities.

I like the system Sweden has - national elections are for citizens only, but local elections are open to anyone who lives in the municipality and is either (1) a Swedish or EU citizen, or (2) has lived in the country for 3 years

> I think it's reasonable not to allow foreigners to vote on local political issues, just as we do on national ones. I wouldn't expect to have a say on political issues in countries I'm not a citizen of. Otherwise you don't have any skin in the game. You can just leave if you don't like the way things are going.

Countries have fought their independence fighting under the concept of "No Taxation without representation".

Reasonable or not I can assure you that foreigners pay the highest rents, have the least rent-control and less land in San Francisco.

I'm not sure I agree about foreigners paying the highest rents, since it really depends what groups of foreigners you're talking about. SV tech employees? Maybe. Refugees? Definitely not. Rent control and land ownership are probably true, but again, that's true of foreign nationals working anywhere, not just in SF or the US.

I think we fundamentally disagree on whether foreigners should have a say in local politics, so we can't really have a productive conversation on this topic while we remain divided on that issue.

> I think we fundamentally disagree on whether foreigners should have a say in local politics, so we can't really have a productive conversation on this topic while we remain divided on that issue.

Not if you cop-out to Refugees, how many are they, 1000?

Rental prices increases affect everyone and affect every single foreigner migrating into the bay are. It also affects people from other states, and those also cannot vote. When the situation becomes untenable they leave the city.

The implementation of democracy can never be absolutely representative, anywhere, and in this situation that 'leaky implementation' is obvious.

If you're a citizen you can vote just by proving you live in the district you want to vote in. The only people being excluded are non-citizens who I don't think should have the same say in local politics as citizens because they can return to their home country if they don't like the effects of the policies they help to enact.

I guess that makes sense on the national level, but couldn't you say that same thing about citizens voting in local politics? They can just move to a different city or state. I don't see a difference right away, but I'm interested in another take on it as far as where the line should be drawn on who gets to vote or not.

Yeah, I think that's a fair criticism. I guess to be logically consistent I'd have to be on board with not letting people vote unless they've lived in an area long enough or own property or something (requiring property ownership seems like a bad idea). I'm not sure how I feel about that though. I guess one thing I can think of is that if you're a citizen you at least nominally share many American values, which is not necessarily true for someone who is just here for career reasons.

Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. The criteria for people to have a voice in local politics shouldn't be a test as to whether they share in "American" values, whatever that means. If you had all those neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottsville move to SF tomorrow, who are US citizens but presumably (hopefully?) don't share in American values in your view, they would have the ability to vote in local elections.

People who pay rent and establish a residence should have a voice in their local(city) elections. Full Stop. Immigrants were allowed limited voting rights in State elections until the 1920's when very anti-immigrant sentiments lead to laws that prohibit that kind of voting.

Everyone votes with their feet: thats why the last Q of 2017 SF had a diminishing demographics.

But that does not make voting on housing representative of its population.

You are being held against your will in SF and can't leave?

It's the other way around. A foreigner living in SF shouldn't be able to vote where they came from. They should in SF.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence. I don't live in SF.

And by foreigner I mean non-citizen. I think if you want to influence policy you should have to have something at stake.

You think foreigners dont have anything at stake?

Are you in favor of not collecting taxes from foreigners then?

US renters also might not live enough time in the city to register

As of 2017, California has same-day voter registration. They can register on voting day.

They need to be inthe city on voting day, and whatever the vote is they dont have the same level of intensity of interest than the homeowners.

Lets look at the big picture: if everyone that lived in san francisco in the last 10 years voted to build more or to stop building, what would be the resulting of such a vote?

I think the answer is obvious. And the fact that it isnt, is just lack of representation.

Well, now you're moving the goalposts, but doesn't everybody have to vote where the voting devices are? Beyond that, your hypothetical is pretty loaded.

Of the group of people available to vote in the city, homeonwners will have a higher participation than renters that can vote. Becuse the latter need to match their residency with the vote, and even then, they dont know as much of the issue as the local, and even then, they dont have the same interest. (the time horizon of a renter could be 2 years, of a landlord its decades).

Thats why I devised that mental exercise: if you gathered up all the poeple that lived over 1 year in san francisco in the last 10 years, which one do you think is in the majority? pro-supply, con-supply?

Of the group of people available to vote in the city, homeonwners will have a higher participation than renters that can vote

I've never heard this before. Cite?

> Im sure that if you put up a vote landowners and rent-controlled renters have a concentrated interest, and renters and foreigners dont have representation even if they are the majority. If you took all renters of SF in the last 6 years you might get a higher number than landowners but they cannot fight it politically.

What's interesting about this situation is that there are likely many people that work in SF that would vote for expanding housing but cannot vote because they don't live in SF, presumably because they cannot afford to. The system reinforces itself.

> SF has a very high foreigner population that cant vote.

Remember, this is SF we're talking about. Long term they're not going to let a lack of citizenship stop someone from voting: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526703128/non-citizens-will-s...

Agreed, if you are going to have democratic processes you must be willing to accept their outcomes, even when the results are not in your favor or grossly against your interests.

You're forgetting that something like 75% of SF has rent control and are thereby excluded from the main reason to care.

EDIT: 75% of rental units & 45% of total

But they should care. Rent control is like gold hand cuffs. Eventually you face a very high chance of being trapped in a dammed if you stay (wrong location, not enough room, etc.) and dammed if you move (huge increase in rent) situation. Building more housing, in sufficient numbers, should alleviate this problem.

It's 45%, as stated by the article. Let's not let hyperbole go too far.

45% of all housing stock, but 75% of all rental units.

They do, but there's a wrinkle. Specifically, it's not fully correct to equate NIMBYs and landowners in SF. SF has plenty of renters who are also NIMBYs, having been convinced that the only way to preserve their lifestyle is to oppose everything.

They do among people who actually vote, but not among all people able to vote.

I'd say that's a pretty safe bet. The mad levels on income inequality are doing their part to obscure exactly what people's interests are in both the short- and long-term.

Local elections have pathetic turnout, usually 10 to 20%

That effectively means that one's vote counts fivefold to tenfold as much... which makes not voting, while complaining about the results, exceptionally perplexing.

They do.

NIMBYs are not the sole problem. Vancouver and Seattle, and their suburbs have had a lot of construction happening for the past decade, yet housing costs in both cities have spiraled out of control.

NIMBYs are a huge problem in Seattle. Depending on how you count, roughly 80% of the city is zoned single family[0]. Construction isn't happening fast enough. In 2016 Seattle only gained 0.4 housing units for every job[1].

[0]https://fancybeans.com/2018/01/24/65-57-35-how-much-seattle-... [1]http://blog.employmarket.com/2017/03/13/2016-metro-area-empl...

Dunno about Vancouver, but NIMBYs are a huge problem in Seattle. Jump into the comment section of any local neighborhood news blog post discussing development and you'll see what I mean.

In King county, there has been lots of construction in the last decade, but not enough to keep pace with immigration.

The mayor has several levers to speed the construction of housing. More housing would get built with a pro housing mayor.

But would it be effective housing, or just more housing that sits dark because it was bought as a way to park cash?

I don't live in SF but it looks like the planning commission is appointed by the mayor.

SF has a lot of bodies with veto powers over any building project (like neighborhood councils) and there's a lot of legal levers to pull. There's a lot more to it than just the city's planning commission.

We need to reform that. There are too many ways for NIMBYs to throw obstacles in front of new development, which hurts everyone, and helps mostly the rich who already own property.

We do! Unfortunately, reforming it is actually surprisingly difficult because NIMBYism is pretty popular.

What is the legal foundation of these "veto powers" to which you refer?

They're structured as approvals required for construction to begin.

But what "bodies" have such power besides the City Council?

(Planning Commissions generally can make recommendations but the ultimate power lies in a City Council)

Right on cue - YIMBY/SFBARFers respond to any HN headline with the words San Francisco and Housing with their strawman argument "NIMBY'S".

Nevermind the fact that the question here is about homelessness which is exacerbated when you lobby to mow down affordable SROs and rent controlled housing so some developers can rebuild luxury condos in their place.

How exactly will that help the homelessness problem?

You really can build enough housing to lower prices. Tokyo has. You can get a small Tokyo studio apartment for $700 per month. [1]

This is because they build housing. San Francisco, London, New York, and Seattle all don't build housing and prices go up. [2]

If housing were easier to build people would build more affordable housing. No developer cares if they build expensive housing or affordable housing, they are maximizing return on investment. Turning a 1 story house into a 3 story house for a 30% return makes developers just as happy as developing 20 luxury condos for a 30% return.

And even those luxury condos provide housing for people who would otherwise buy old condos and renovate them. As long as the housing is more dense and there is more of it, prices will come down.

[1] https://resources.realestate.co.jp/buy/average-rent-in-japan...

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3...

You can get a nice two bedroom within walking distance of Tencent's global HQ in Shenzhen for around $950 per month.

https://m.fang.com/zf/sz/AGT_206834195.html?listtype=1&lists...

More housing (even luxury) increases supply thus lowers prices. That means that someone living in a studio might move to a 1 bed, leaving the studio vacant, thus increasing supply as people move up — a process that is only possible with a greater supply.

And rent control actually leads to shortages as mobility is reduced because of people staying in places longer than they would have otherwise. It also disincentivizes creation of new housing.

Greater supply is needed. That’s the bottom line.

THIS.

Every time I hear "we need to protect poor from eviction by evil tech workers" I want to scream.

Yeah sure.. tech workers who make 150k+ are dreaming about moving in a shitty house in East Bay.

Boulding more affordable housing looks great in a political ad, but does not do shit to resolve the crisis

Reply on news.ycombinator.com