Planet Money on Bay Area Housing Costs | Hacker News Reader

Planet Money on Bay Area Housing Costs

npr.org

50 pointsakanet25 comments

Here’s a crazy idea. Every time a city in California permits construction to add a job, the city has to permit construction for a home.

Mountain View spent a decade adding Google jobs while adding zero new places for the workers live. Now everyone scratches their heads about why the traffic on 101 is absurd. There’s a vacant lot smack in the middle of Google campus zoned for hotel. Permit a residential high rise in that lot and see what happens.

Land value tax.

Prop 13 is destroying California.

“local governments have made it hard to build housing” “self inflicted shortage” “restrictive zoning” “local councils get involved that can file endless appeals” “Governments create a housing shortage”

^ Real Issue

#TechCafeterias

^ Fake Issue

I disagree that there's a crisis. There are many tech workers who can afford to pay the prices. I agree that there are also many dysfunctional zoning practices as well as laws (Proposition 13).

People have 3 options in general:

1. Make more money.

2. Leave.

3. Endure.

Option 1 is what a large fraction of the Bay Area has done. Whether or not it's a bubble is another conversation. It's pretty much clear that Bay Area tech jobs pay more than anywhere else on the planet. Even when taking into account the cost of living, you will save more money in absolute terms living in the Bay Area than anywhere else.

Option 2 is already happening [1].

Option 3 is the strange thing. If people hate the prices and general cost of living that much, why won't they leave? Temperate weather, job opportunities and family are many reasons among the many. Regardless, these factors are already factored into the price. By staying one simply reinforces the positive qualities while having no stake (home ownership).

The conclusion is there is no crisis. As far as the backward laws and zoning policies. Don't hold your breath -- for Prop 13 in particular that's state wide and the majority of Californians own [2]. As for zoning -- let's just say there's zero incentive for it to be relaxed.

Summary: make more money or leave. Sorry. The irony is that the logic of the people who insist people should be able to live in their own community for reasons is the same that resulted in Prop 13 and in making zoning laws strict to prevent newcomers -- who would change the community from what the original migrants had when they arrived. The preservationist entitled attitude is the problem. If people just left the problem would resolve itself. Teachers would be paid more to prevent mass leaving, etc. etc.

[1] https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265?platform=ho...

[2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ca/PST045217

Yeah, all those people who drive my Lyft, deliver my Good Eggs, Rabbit my Tasks or teach my children in public school and those nurses should just commute every day from Modesto or Dublin! Or you know maybe just move away if they are too poor.

Yes, exactly. No one is entitled to live anywhere. Don't be ridiculous. If they were willing to move they would accordingly become scarce and therefore more valuable and an equilibrium would met. By staying they are simply harming themselves -- to what end? Plenty of people move away from the Bay Area for cost reasons.

This is the same dilemma that has inhibited them from gaining leverage politically that would resolve the zoning issues.

Where should the non-tech workers of the Bay Area live?

Anywhere they can afford to.

Enjoy the garbage piling up in the streets when garbage collectors can't afford to live there.

They should leave the Bay Area. I wouldn’t go near the Bay Area to live. I have a nice comfortable life in a major metro area in a good school system where my mortgage on my brand new build 3000 square foot house is around $2000.

Well, someone has to run essential services, right? Who's going to teach? Who's going to work in the services industry?

If more people left, they would have to pay more.

But where would this end? Where does this money come from to pay them? More taxes for the SAME service at HIGHER cost? I moved from SF to NY and I feel like my high taxes benefit me much more directly than SF.

The free market should sort itself out. If the taxes go up, either salaries will go up or companies won’t be able to find workers because people won’t be willing to move there.

If companies decide that it’s not worth it to be in Silicon Valley, the demand for housing will go down as will the prices.

Sooner or later salaries/housing prices/employment opportunities/taxes will come into balance.

We have the option to accommodate everyone at a price they can afford by building more housing, why not take that option?

Some people don't want to live with more density as that's not what they encountered when they first arrived.

Should society allow these people to set zoning policy?

If I moved here ten years ago and rented, and now the community is changing around me and rent is getting expensive and the thought of buying seems remote - then you think I should fuck off and move away. But if I bought a house ten years ago and I don't want mid-rises popping up around me, then I should somehow get more of a say because the mid-rises weren't what I signed up for?

I'm lucky enough to own a house in the south bay, but I know plenty of people who rent, some of whom have been here longer than me, and believe me, $3000/mo with five housemates isn't what they signed up for either. I can deal with the fucking mid-rises.

Owning property gives you a right to do what you want with that property, within reason. It shouldn't give you the right to be an obstinate neighbor.

Sure, but people who have stake, e.g. ownership, will be more active politically and they're the majority of Californians. Renters will not win. Again, make more money, leave or endure.

And other people don’t want to pay more rent than they encountered when they arrived.

Then, according to your previous logic in other comments, they should move somewhere else.

Yes, exactly. They already do, unless they can afford it or have purchased a home.

I respect that you're able to voice such an unpopular idea, but you're still wrong. It's bad for a city when growth becomes toxic in terms of commute, traffic congestion, and lack of good transit options. The economic and psychological impact of long commutes and high rents are serious.

> The economic and psychological impact of long commutes and high rents are serious.

Apparently not serious enough to have people suffering from said "impact" from leaving.

If people leave when they're dissatisfied the problem will resolve itself.

Option [4] Work for candidates who support housing: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/07/17/son...

Leaving costs money. Most Americans don’t have the financial cushion to spend time unemployed while looking for work elsewhere. So they stick with what they have even if it’s unsustainable because it’s the only way they can see to keep food on the table in the short term.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com